Open Post
I'll be on the road and probably out of communications for most of today, perhaps until tomorrow.
As a result, I would like it if no important news happens today.
But in case it does, or if you just want to chat, this post is open for comments. Enjoy.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I went to my first all candidates debate in Ottawa-Centre last night. It was in my neighbourhood, and even though I have decided which way I will be voting (Conservative Keith Fountain), I wanted to get a feel of the other candidates.
A few things I noticed last night:
I talked with Green candidate and deputy party leader David Chernushenko. This guy is pretty down to earth and if I weren't voting for a national party in hopes of stopping the Liberal lobbyist insider and Paul Martin attaché Richard Mahoney, I'd definitely vote Green. Chernushenko mentioned this at the debate a few times. I hope he does well.
Paul Dewar was a bit of a disappointment. I have been to debates in the past where the NDP brings out busloads of supporters to stack the room. Dewar showed up with his wife, and that's it. He seemed really bored to be there, and made several puzzling errors in his responses to speeches. I don't know that he can win on Broadbent's coattails.
Richard Mahoney showed up with about 20 fartcatchers. These twenty something Carleton students (or whatever) were probably lured to the campaign with promises of jobs in cabinet minister Mahoney's office. It looks unlikely he can fulfill that promise. Anyway, the 20 fartcatchers basically filled the room. Residents of our community were surrounded by these guys. A little bit of overkill. Mahoney is good at answering questions, very folksy and friendly. But for people like me, who know about his lobbyist past and who bankrolled his campaign, it's not genuine.
Keith Fountain, my candidate, did a fairly good job at responding to questions despite a case of laryngitis. This area of the riding is more Conservative than others, so the audience was more receptive to his message.
There were some interesting attendees. Some people from Fair Vote Canada (really didn't understand what their problem is), another guy who is an anarchist and was passing out "don't vote" literature, and there was a CFRA host - Professor Gerry Cammy (sp?).
On another note: I heard that Richard Mahoney was telling residents at a senior's home that their grandchildren would be sent to fight in Afghanistan if the Conservatives get in. I hope that's not true, cause it would just enforce my already stained opinion of Richard Mahoney.
Thanks, Steve, for this open post board!
Good idea!
Posted by: jim in ottawa centre at January 21, 2006 09:14 AM
Can anyone confirm the location and time of Harper's stop in Guelph today? Thanks,
Posted by: Ockham at January 21, 2006 09:18 AM
Paul Martin is a fucking Liar...
I challenge Mr Martin to sue me...
Paul Martin is a fucking Liar...
Posted by: william wylie Ajax,Ont. at January 21, 2006 09:26 AM
I just read Charles Adler's column about what Toronto is being fed from the centralist media. I would encourage everyone - if you know someone in Toronto to e-mail links to some of the dirty stuff that has been uncovered. It is time for the small guy and girl (us) on the ground to do everything we can to show just how corrupt this country has become under the Liberals.
Write emails, phone do whatever you can over the next two days to get this to the people of Ontario and especially the GTA.
The voting irregularities in Edmonton, the MSM blantant misreporting all have to be put out into the open a.s.a.p.
Stand up for Canada - do whatever small thing you can!!
Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 21, 2006 09:26 AM
Since the start of the campaign seven weeks ago, Martin has spoken a total of 872,910 words (I know this because I have transcribed all his speeches and counted the total number of words he's spoken ... lol/jk)
Has anyone noticed that of the near million words Martin has spoken over the past seven weeks that none included "accountability", "ethics" or "integrity."
Is there a reason why Martin has chosen to avoid using any or all of these terms?
Is it because he doesn't believe in them? Is it because they are unimortant and irrelevant in this election? Or is it because by using them, he reinforces the doubt about his credibility in the minds of the viewer who have come to distrust andthing he or his party has to say anymore?
Posted by: Dale at January 21, 2006 09:34 AM
a plea to all good and loyal Canadians. On Jan 23rd,
Abort Paul Martin
Abort the Liberal Party of Canada
Abort the Liberal candidate in your riding
Abort, Abort, Abort and save Canada
Stand up for all Canadians having the right to choose
Posted by: Abilene at January 21, 2006 09:37 AM
Fair Vote Canada's "problem" is an electoral system that produces parliaments that do not reflect the way Canadians vote. We are one of the last countries in the world that uses the "first past the post system," in which millions of votes are literally wasted. Those votes ought to count, so that we don't keep getting phony majorities, where 40% or so of those who vote get a majority of the seats.
At its worst, the present system can leave a lot of voters out in the cold. In New Brunswick, 60% of the voters once managed to to claim 100% of the seats. In Ontario, Conservatives get a lot of votes, but a disproporionately low number of seats. The NDP needs about 110,000 voters to get a seat, as opposed to (going from memory) about 44,000 to win a Liberal seat.
That's why Fair Vote Canada has supporters right across the political spectrum, even a few Liberals (despite how well FPTP has served them). The issue has been frontburnered this time by columnists like John Ibbitson, and the Ottawa Citizen featured a 2-page spread not long ago on the entire issue.
In BC a few months back, 58% of the voters in a referendum supported a move to electoral reform, and over 60% was achieved in 77 out of 79 ridings--but the reigning party said that they needed 60% of the overall vote to prevail!
It's a pity that "Jim" was too lazy to read the leaflet he was given or to consult the website where the entire case is laid out. Here, for more thoughtful folks, is that website:
http://www,fairvotecanadaorg
Incidentally, on the meeting itself, I thought all of the candidates were showing signs of campaign fatigue. Jim is right about Mahoney's claque, but it's a bit odd that he seems to be criticizing Dewar for not having one!
Mahoney served papers on Dewar earlier in the day. The man, who has threatened to sue the Centretown Tomes as well, thinks he can sue his way into office.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 21, 2006 09:42 AM
It's a foregone comclusion. The Tories are going to win. The only question is: majority or minority?
What I'm looking forward to is the first session of parliament for the NEW government.
Won't it be great to see Paul Martin as "Leader of the Opposition" (gives me goosebumps just saying that) saying, "Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the prime minister..."
Just think of how humiliating it will be for Martin to address someone else as prime minister.
Even better, just think of Stephen Harper's first reply as prime minister.
He'll probably stand up, look over at Martin and say in a long-and-drawn-out manner, "Well, well, well!"
And then all the Tories in parliament will stand up, clap for Harper, bang their desks, and jeer and laugh at Martin.
That will be a sight to behold!
Posted by: Dale at January 21, 2006 09:43 AM
Fair Vote. It's just too bad that the majority of Canadians have never heard about the organization. It would truly be the most fair system whereby all Canadians could feel that they have somebody representing their interests in parliament.
Posted by: JM at January 21, 2006 10:16 AM
Question for the smart folk: Why are they called "pollsters", instead of "pollers"? Is it some kind of a "hipster" thing?
Posted by: LookingIn at January 21, 2006 10:39 AM
Before we get proporational representation, how about we get a little equality. BC & Alberta have almost the same number of people as Quebec yet we have 11 fewer seats. Before the last election, my riding in a Vancouver suburb had as many people in it as PEI yet they got 4 MPs to our 1. But of course to central and eastern Canadians this is just the west complaining again.
Posted by: Fritz at January 21, 2006 10:45 AM
There is something brewing about the GG of Canada signing a document for the payment over 1.1 billion dollars on Dec 22 on the recomendation of the treasury board, very odd since the house is not sitting. check SmallDeadAnimals.com for more info.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2006 10:53 AM
I'm sorry for earlier dismissing Fair Vote Canada as some group with a "problem". At the meeting last night, it wasn't clear what they were trying to get across.
So Mahoney is suing Dewar? Pathetic and desperate.
Maybe the NDP should sue Mike Klander, Richard Mahoney's buddy and contributor, after the election for all his racists comments. Maybe the government should sue the Liberal Party for the missing sponsorship money too. They're already broke, break them some more!
Posted by: jim in ottawa centre at January 21, 2006 11:16 AM
Hey William, now there is scientific proof of your assertion about Paul Martin
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8615
Posted by: l at January 21, 2006 11:47 AM
Canada's flood of interesting headlines is about to erupt as hidden Liberal party excess and wrongdoing are discovered and reported.
Lawyers will make fortunes and taxpayers will be paying off those debts for years to come.
Expensive? Yes! The improved integrity of future governments in Canada may be well worth it however.
A strengthened Whistle Blower Protection law, [bill C-11] and individual Ministry accounting and audit control will remain in effect for future governments, saving Canadians $billions.
What a relief! TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Here's a good message from Stephen Taylor(http://www.stephentaylor.ca/); You cannot bring hope when all you have to offer is fear. Good quote from Rona Ambrose.
Posted by: Cheri at January 21, 2006 12:08 PM
I think I have the perfect job for PM starting Tuesday.
He could star in a Canadian version of the US cable investment show Mad Money. A perfect fill in for Jim Cramer. Althoug Cramer is adept,PM could match his ranting buzz.
Posted by: Sparks at January 21, 2006 12:25 PM
The correct link to Fair Vote Canada is:
http://www.fairvotecanada.org/
Posted by: Mikofox at January 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Jim, sorry to hammer you like that. I'm getting a little touchy this far into the campaign. The FVC question last night was, admittedly, a little convoluted. But our message is a democratic one.
In that connection, Fountain's response was a bit disappointing. All he wanted to talk about was fixed election dates and an elected Senate. On the former, what happens if a government loses the confidence of the house early in its mandate? It gets to limp along for another three years?
I thought Paul did OK, just a little tired, and probably on edge after being threatened with a lawsuit by the greasy Mahoney. As always, David gave the best performance. I'm sorry I won't be voting for him.
The Liberals seem bent on suing their way into office. Mahoney had earlier threatened to sue the Centretown News--great move for an allegedly community-oriented person. Ignatieff threatened to sue the Toronto Star. Some other idiot is suing the Surly Beaver blogger, and, acorss the river here, the Liberal threatened to sue the NDP candidate for saying that Liberals believe in a culture of entitlement. And don't forget the pro-Haiti activist jailed for five days in Montreal for heckling Paul Martin.
Maybe lawyers should be barred from running.
My prediction? Dewar in Ottawa-Centre by a few hundred votes, a surprisingly good showing by Fountain, and a surprisingly poor one by David Chernushenko. Nationally, a Conservative minority, if you believe the polls. Olivia Chow will win in Trinity-Spadina.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 21, 2006 12:50 PM
Mikofox,
Thanks for that. I must have been half asleep.
http://www.fairvote.ca works too--bounces you over to the other one.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 21, 2006 12:57 PM
On Monday, January 23, 2006, all Canadians, who have suffered from demagogy, deception and lies of the Libreals and Paul Martin will hear the loss of the election for them.
Prime Minister Paul O'GULAG McBinStronach and his Liberals will experience what means the expanion of poverty, gangs, deportation of academic immigrants, slavery, patronage sustem for their loyalists and friends, exploitation and the political trickery.
Giusseppe Volpe, Mario Silva, Tony Ianno, Tony Valeri, Ruth Thorkelson, Scott Reid, Tim Murphy, David Petyerson, Peter Nicholoson, John Duffy, David Herle, Terrie O' Leary, Maurice F. Strong and many rich people of Toronto's Bay Street will hear the voice of peopleof Canada, who are punishing them.
Punishment for those Liberals who have expanded GULAG of poverty, unemployment, humiliation, and the gradual deaths.
Mario Silva, who is not an adult person, is a person who ignores the voices of people; he is very very ignorant to the voices and the rights of people.
Giussppe Volpe, who was a teacher and later a principal in a school, is one of the strongest and biggest supoorter of the King of GULAGs, Paul Martin in Canada.
He has no qualification; he is fully emptied from humanity; he is emptied from beihg honest.
Tony Ianno is proud of having a seat near Paul Martin in cabinet; he is a person who is ego centric and unqialified for being even en employee of a bakery in downtown of Toronto!
David Herle, Tim Murphy, Blinda Stronach and others are those, who feel themselves as the servicemen and agents for the wills of the Captain of CSL, who has ruined all hopes of people for the politics of truth.
On Monday, we will will see how people of Canada will throw away all these agaents of the politics of lies and deception into the garbage of history.
Taliban in Afganistan, Idi Amin in Uganda, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Agustino Pinochet in Chile, all were the agents of the politics of lies and GULAGs.
The GULAG makers of Canada are mourning for their loss on Monday.
On Monday, people will see how beautiful it is to throw a way these usless and harmful politicians into the garbage of history.
I as a scientist with a PhD degree in the biomedical sciences from Germany, after more than 2 years and thousands applications for employment to all centres, to MPs, to Ministers and PMO, I have been ignored.
Paul Martin and his Liberals have terrorized me and my professional career, although I have a recognized and accepted PhD in Canada.
Bioterrorism in its governemntal form is not unknow for those people who know the symptoms of this misery.
I am very disappointed.
Yours sincerely,
A. Diba, PhD
Posted by: Abbas Diba at January 21, 2006 01:02 PM
P.M.'s next life? Join the crew on his ship soon to be re-flagged and replaced with a foriegn crew. Hopefully they mutiny like Canada will Mutiny on the 23rd. Gomery made sure we can't get his ass in jail but maybe there can be some justice at high sea?
Posted by: Cheri at January 21, 2006 01:03 PM
"I as a scientist with a PhD degree in the biomedical sciences from Germany, after more than 2 years and thousands applications for employment to all centres, to MPs, to Ministers and PMO, I have been ignored.
"Paul Martin and his Liberals have terrorized me and my professional career, although I have a recognized and accepted PhD in Canada.
"Bioterrorism in its governemntal form is not unknow for those people who know the symptoms of this misery."
Am I misreading this, or is this a threat?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 21, 2006 01:05 PM
Taliban of Afganistan escaped to TORABORA's Mountains around the Kandihar; how about Paul Martin and his Liberals? Where are they escaping on Monday, January 23, 2006?
The GULAG Maker Der Great, Captain Paul Martin, whose shares in Cordex Petroleum Inc in Alberta were enriched by the trasfer of the petrodollars of Saddam Hussein, is mourning where he must go for living after receiving order to evacuate the SUSSEX Street in Ottawa!
Mr. Tongsun Park, the former spy of South Korea, who sent the cheque of petrodollars of Saddam Hussein to the Cordex Petroleum Inc in Alberta where Paul Martin has shares, has been arrested in USA.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, the great expander of poverty, slavery and GULAGs, had chosen the big corporations of TORONTO's Bay Street instead of being with people and for people!
Nobody asks why Royal Bank of Canada gave over $ 160,000,000 to Paul Martin for buying of CSL from Paul Desmarais, sr. in Pover Corporation in Montreal?
If normal people, even are not getting $ 1000 from Royal Bank, how Paul Martin recieved over $ 160,000,000?
The man of flags from Liberia and Barbados is not ready to say, why he and his friends have deported scientists into GULAG of unemployment, poverty and the gradual deaths?
I am one of those scientists, who has a PhD degree--- recognized and accepted PhD in Canada---, and has been tortured in Paul Martin and his Liberals's GULAG.
How long terror of scientists?
How long BIOTERRORISM?
Do Martin and his Liberals understand the meaning of humanity?
Are they humans?
At least, the need to behave as humans!
I am very disppointed.
Yours sincerely,
A. Diba, PhD
Posted by: Abbas Diba at January 21, 2006 01:27 PM
You have the right to choose your government
In your cities
With ballots
In Canada
We are not making this up!
Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at January 21, 2006 01:46 PM
You have the right to choose your government
In your cities
With ballots
In Canada
We are not making this up!
==> but first - be afraid, be very afraid
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2006 01:54 PM
>> But of course to central and eastern Canadians this is just the west complaining again
Not all of us here in Eastern Canada spout the "party line" like faithfull little robots. Some of us actually think about the issues, and believe in conservative values. Your concerns about equal representation are valid, so I support efforts to redress the imbalance. You need more seats, or we need less.
Off topic, but I'm happy I found this blog a couple of months ago. We hear from the MSM almost nothing about the scandals and treachery covered here and elsewhere. No wonder we usually vote liberal ~ most of us never hear the truth about the fiberals. It's costing me a small fortune for ink printing stuff to show around, but if it opens peoples minds to the truth ..... :)
Posted by: Steve in CB at January 21, 2006 02:25 PM
There was a nice little snowstorm in Ottawa this morning.. So I stayed inside and read the Ottawa Citizen. Man, are they ever trying to suck up with the Conservatives.. It's a little too late for that. They've literally gone from a Martin mouthpiece to boot polishing overnight. They're about a week behind the Globe & Mail in that respect.
I think the CBC is now in bunker mentality. They've hedged all their bets and will go down with the Liberals. It can't be pretty in their Ottawa & Toronto offices. Ahh the snow has stopped. Ottawa appears quiet...a walk up bank reveals the Green Party loading things into a local restaurant/bar for their Election Night shindig. Good for them. I hope they have a good time. I met their Ottawa Centre candidate..Chernobylsomething...anyway..he came across as a really nice guy with a good future.
It's really quiet...if you listen closely..all you can from Laurier on down to the Ottawa river is snow plows and the hum of paper shredders.
Posted by: downtownslater at January 21, 2006 03:11 PM
Every decade or so, we seem to elect a Conservative government so they can show us one more time, that yes, they ARE worse than the Liberals. Then everyone holds their noses and votes Liberal again. Why not vote NDP for a real change? The Liberals have had their paws in the cookie jar forever except for those periods when the Conservatives had their paws there while selling our independence to the US. The NDP where it has been in government has at the very least been honest. This time the Conservatives are no longer even calling themselves "Progressive" and are just another tool of George Bush.
Posted by: Newton at January 21, 2006 03:12 PM
"The NDP where it has been in government has at the very least been honest. "
Honestly awful here in Ontario. They doubled the provincial debt in four years, boosted welfare rates 25% above the national average encouraging many folks to get onto it. PO'd the public service unions with "Rae Days".
Posted by: takefive at January 21, 2006 03:28 PM
Takefive is right. Socialism doesn't work. Socialists are dreamers, nice poeple and all. But no sense of reality. Bob Rae is a good example. Stick with free enterprise, it works.
Posted by: Herman at January 21, 2006 03:51 PM
THE BLACK CLOUDS AND LOSS OF ELECTION FOR THE LIBERALS
The big problem on Monday, January 23, 2006 is that Paul Martin's Liberals will fail to understand that the election is a political battle because our people in Canada would convince our chicken politicians, who call themselves as the Liberals to pull out.
Most Arrogant-Yet-Chicken Politicians will understand why people don't like them any more.
When these Liberal's politicians like Paul Martin are rushing around Canada and behaving like the chikcen with their heads cut off; and are accusing other politicians and the foreign countries for the GULAG of Canada, then people are going to punish them on the upcoming elction on Monday.
People are full aware of the expanison of GULAG of poverty, unemployment, addictions, slavery, gangs, crimes and the gradual deaths in many major cities, which are the impacts of years cutting of the budget in the social programs, employment insurance, housing, education and health care issues.
People know very well the roles of Paul Martin and his Liberals as the dearest darlings of TORONTO's Bay Street for the misery of their country.
Paul Martin and his Liberals, instead of respecting of scientists and academic immigrants, they have deported them into thetorture's chambers of GULAG of unemployment, poverty, slavery, ignorings, humiliation, ailments and the gradual deaths.
The scientists in Canada need to study and to know what chickens are these Liberals who are rushing around the country with their heads cut off and are causing harms to the lives of people and are promoting the politics of lies and decption in Canada.
As we know chickens, along with quail, pheasants, and turkeys, belong to the order Galliformes. They are used in biomedical research for studies in neurology, embryology, endocrinology, microbiology, the skeletal system and nutrition; but what chickens are the Liberals, who are not beneficial to people but also they are GULAG- MAKERS of the country for destructive biopolitics.
Those Liberals, who have not learned and don't want to learn the alphabet of the PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY in their schools, have been appointed in many strategic positions of the country in the instiutions and departments; they are appointed because they enjoy from the patronage advatages of the prime minister, who appointes thousands his own people and friends in thousands positions.
Paul Martin indirectly says: forget about the Westminister-style democracy and the role of Parliament!
As we know, recently, in the election, Paul Martin said that he has very good DNA for the National Unity in Canada with the characteritstic flags of Liberia and Barbados in his sheeps; hence, the scientists doubt whether or not he has any humans' DNA!
Most chicken genes have equivalents in human beings, so using the chicken to identify what genes are for has a direct impact on our understanding of human biology. The scientists are experimenting Martin's genes for the National Unity of Canada.
Paul Martin's claims for having very high quality of the human's genes or the human's DNA for the National Unity, is a matter of surprising in the world of science and and politics; it is also a matter of doubt for many people who know that he is a big liars.
His friends in the politics of lies and decption are Blinda Stronach Bin Magna, Tony Valeri Bin Real State, Tony Ianno Bin Ignoring, Mario Silva Bin Chicken, Scott Reid Bin Beer & Popcorn, David Herle Bin Earnscliffe & CSL, Ruth Thorkelson Bin Forest & Lies, Tim Murphy Bin Bay Street's Law and some others, whose genes and DNAs are not clear-cut determined if they are real parts of the humans' genoms or the chickens' genoms??
If the Liberals in the Paul Martin's party have the genes, which might be the parts of the genes inn the chikckens, then the political observers after discussions with the molecular biologists must compromise for any appropriate results; some nurologists are guessing that these Liberals may have the chickens' brains, which are inappropriate for working in the government; they are the chickens' brains and the government's responsibilities are huge and like a dinasaur; how can a brain of a chicken function in the body of a dinasaur?
The scientists are hoping that for many gene-function experiments in the genes of the politicians in the Liberal party like Paul martin, who are claiming that they have the best DNA for the Nationa Unity; these Liberals' chicken cell cultures and embryos will eventually prove to be better test subjects for helping to people who would like to participate in the upcoming election on Monday, January 23, 2006 than laboratory mice, who are not the politicians in the Liberal party.
I am a scientist with a PhD degree in the biomedical sciences from the School of Medicine in Germany; my qualifications and PhD have been recognized and accepted in Canada, but these Liberals and Paul Martin are ignoring my voice and my rights to life.
After more than 2 years and thousands applications to all institutions, to MPs, to Ministers, to Public Service Commission, to Human Resources and skills development and to the Prime Minister's Office, they have ignored me; they have ruined my life; they have ruined my professional development despite having an accepted and recognized PhD in Canada.
Bioterrorism of the Liberals means shooting into the brains of scientists and academic immigrants who are victims of the politics of lies and decption.
Definition of bioterrorism is based on harms on the bios of people; Paul martin and his Liberals in Canada are shooting into brains of scientists; the Charter of Rights and Freeoms is a kind of toy for their games in the politics.
Paul Martin and his Liberals are not believing on the Charter of Rights.
If we have two politics: the politics of fear and the politics of trust, then people know Paul Martin and his Liberals have chosen the politics of fear.
The politics of trust means eleimination of GULAGs and trust to people; the Liberals and Paul Martin are not trusting to people of Canada.
The politics of fear is the instrument of Paul Martin and his Liberals.
They have terrorized over 2 years of my life; they ruined my professional career in Canada.
They are committing BIOTERRORISM; I expect the independent judiciary council will judge these crimes.
Every crime must be punished.
On Monday, January 23, 2006, people of Canada will punish the politics of lies and deception of these pseudo-Liberals who have created GULAG against the lives of people.
I thank you for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
A. Diba, PhD
Posted by: Abbas Diba at January 21, 2006 04:10 PM
hey Abbas Diba
How about you give us a break? I think we get the point.
Posted by: shutthehellup at January 21, 2006 04:20 PM
As President and sole member of Polyholics Anonymous, I want to thank Steve Janke and all the other bloggers too, for making this one of the best and enjoyable election coverages I have ever seen. If this form of communication had been available years ago, the Big Red Liberal Machine would have been sent rusting at the bottom of the Great Lakes long before now. The point to understand is that all the classless and criminal behaviour of the Liberals is not new. They have gotten away with it for years because the mainstream media was afraid of the Liberal aholes like Scott Reid. The bloggers have shortcircuited the whole MSM information process and brought an unprecedented democracy to the flow of election information.
'Political institutions should fit the intellectual level of society.'
Now it will be up to the bloggers to make sure that the governing party updates the political institutions of this country.
Posted by: rockyt at January 21, 2006 04:21 PM
I just watched Paul Martin give a speech somewhere in Ontario. One thing I noticed. Every time he talked about Stephen Harper and the Conservative platform his head canted to the right. For those of you who are saying huh...and wtf does that have to do with anything? Allow me to explain.
One of the most noticeable traits to watch for when someone is out right lying or spinning the truth, is that their head has a natural tendency to cant to the right. This of course is a subconscious act and the speaker in completely unaware he/she is doing it. Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton do not seem to be doing this so they actually believe in what they are saying.
Posted by: Odie441 at January 21, 2006 04:24 PM
"The NDP where it has been in government has at the very least been honest"
Honestly awful here in Manitoba too. For a summary of some of their recent shenanigans, see http://www.blackrod.blogspot.com/.
They were even worse back in the 1980s. They were taking us down the Bob Rae road to hell until they were turfed in 1988 and we were rescued by the sensible fiscal regime of Gary Filmon's conservatives. Filmon had to build a strong fiscal edifice, not only to prevent going over the precipice prepared by the NDP, but to withstand the fiscal assault from Ottawa, as Paul Martin the great deficit slayer, did so on the backs of the Provinces and the municipalities. I suppose it was necessary, but at least their role should be recognized when the Liberal media are congratulating Martin for his one apparent accomplishment. They could also mention the key role of the fiscal tools left by the Mulroney regime, and the economic impetus of U.S expansion and free trade.
So Martin did not get fully exposed as an empty vessel until he actually became Prime Minister. And then the 'honest" NDP held their noses a lot longer than the rest of us were able to bear.
Posted by: Felix at January 21, 2006 04:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Canada&oldid=35428380
Posted by: bill bourne at January 21, 2006 04:35 PM
Yeah, that would explain why Dewar didn't do so well last night.
This Mahoney lawsuit nonsense shows us - no one should vote for Richard Mahoney.
What a pathetic move.
Posted by: jim in ottawa centre at January 21, 2006 04:43 PM
Is anyone besides me planning to stock up on beer and popcorn to watch election results on Monday evening?
Posted by: Nancy at January 21, 2006 04:43 PM
National Post
2006-01-26
Liberals take a licking in hamburger poll
PM receives more whacks: Unscientific surveys indicate Conservative win
Lick's Burgers Poll
"....In every election for the last 20 years, the Lick's Burger Poll has been absolutely right on the money, predicting the correct outcome every time...."
"...Political parties and the media collectively spend $ millions polling voters to see who's on top. Why bother? Lick's Burger Poll results are tabulated and posted outside the stores every day. And they've never been wrong," says Meehan..."
Posted by: JM at January 21, 2006 04:53 PM
Odie441; yeah that poor, poor pitifull me act is completely pitifull. Listening to Peter Warren via Satelite this aft. - Vancouver news reported Mr. Martin's wants to remind us of Harper's EXTREME right-wing agenda. As apposed to his poor me, little Party, the Liberals. I'm paraphrasing all this and I admit, stretching it a bit , but that was the message. He can be a real 'drama Queen' when he needs to be. Watching him put on his little 'poor me' acts since he became P.M. will someday make a great comedy. He stammers and stutters and looks like he's about to start blubbering. Classic canter!
Posted by: Cheri at January 21, 2006 04:54 PM
"1990: The federal government, led by Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney, introduces Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk. The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the Senate [1991] after a tie vote."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/abortion/
Does anyone honestly think the current, massively-Liberal, Senate, would pass an abortion bill (and many people seem unaware that since the Supreme Court 1988 decision this country has had no law at all on abortion) if one happened to get through the House?
So what is all the fuss about?
And why are the media not pointing out this simple reality?--as Harper tried to do indirectly when mentioning checks on a Conservative government. He simply should have left things with the Senate alone.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at January 21, 2006 05:18 PM
Might be wrong about Martin et al. supporting C-43--cannot find anything through Google.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at January 21, 2006 05:40 PM
"P.M.'s next life? Join the crew on his ship soon to be re-flagged and replaced with a foriegn crew. Hopefully they mutiny like Canada will Mutiny on the 23rd. Gomery made sure we can't get his ass in jail but maybe there can be some justice at high sea?"
Justice at Sea?
It's called flogging or walking the plank.
Aye, matey, ever been to sea, Paulie?
Posted by: On-Tory-O at January 21, 2006 06:15 PM
Dear Mr Abbas Diba,
I know nothing about you other than encountering your posts to blogs in the last few weeks, but I think it's obvious to most people reading your posts that you might not be very capable during a job interview process. A scientific PhD is an impressive credential but it's the whole person who obtains employment. It can be a little costly but you may want to consider some professional career counselling, interview coaching etc from a reputable firm. Surely there is some kind of reasonably well-paying employment available in Canada in "biomedical sciences" even if it is not at the level you may think you are entitled to.
I would also like to add that, if you are looking for a sympathetic audience regarding your bitterness towards the federal government for failing to assist you to find suitable employment, you may have come to the wrong blog. The posters here tend to be a conservative crowd and the concept of a well-educated person blaming the federal government for their employment difficulties is, frankly, laughable. The old joke is, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you". Look to yourself, look within, for the resources to find suitable employment, not to the government. That is the traditional Canadian way. I suspect that you may be a bitter Liberal voter.
wishing you all the best in your future endeavours,
calgarian
Posted by: calgarian at January 21, 2006 06:25 PM
Newton says "Why not vote NDP for a real change?"
Having suffered under the outrageous antics of the NDP's Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh (now a Minister with the Fiberals) we in BC know about the "wisdom" of voting NDP. The scary part is how many people actually think of the provincial NDP as a viable alternative!! Thank goodness no-one considers them as such federally!!
Posted by: Mac at January 21, 2006 06:46 PM
Angry says: "But in case it does, or if you just want to chat, this post is open for comments. Enjoy"
...nothing like leaving the door open to the hen house
;-)
Posted by: tomax at January 21, 2006 07:01 PM
Here's a silly thought, and I hope it's just as result of my stomach rumbling before supper...
If, and a BIG IF, Landslide Anne and other centres like Surry and such are found to be a result of voter tampering, can Mr. Martin approach Metro Jean and declare this election as (whatever the technical word is) over and continue the government?
Man, just thinking that is giving me indigestion...
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at January 21, 2006 07:49 PM
Well well well, take a look at this:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/
"Don't let Calgary decide for Quebec."
That's what the Bloc is warning people about in their ad, running in Quebec papers today.
Remember when, in 1997, the Reform party was roundly denounced for running ads that showed photos of Jean Chrétien, Lucien Bouchard and Jean Charest, suggesting they were all in favour of special rights for Quebec. The TV spot demanded a "voice for all Canadians, not just Quebec politicians", but federalist leaders claimed that it was an unfair accusation.
Yes, there's a difference between that Reform ad and this one: The Bloc is unabashedly running as a Quebec Power party, whereas Preston Manning was running, ostensibly, as a federalist egalitarian. But since the Bloc cannot ever hope to win a government, isn't this advertisement essentially an exhortation to block the Tories, who presumably (by the ad's logic) would deliver less to Quebec than, say, a politician from that province?
And, um, wasn't that exactly Manning's point in the first place?
Posted by: tomax at January 21, 2006 07:56 PM
On the topic of Gun Control.......
Mr. Martin has declared a ban on all legally owned handguns in Canada, with the intent of "...choking of the supply of these weapons to criminals."
I've got a better idea; how about "choking off the supply" of LIBERALS TO OTTAWA. Much more cost effective, and you would actually see some positive results on crime in Canada!
Stand up for change, and stand up for Canada on Monday!
Posted by: TheScout at January 21, 2006 08:00 PM
Hey!
The BBC has your great work!!! :)
news.
bbc.
co.
uk/2/hi/americas/4622030.stm
Posted by: Floyd Low at January 21, 2006 08:09 PM
Good idea, TheScout! That would significantly impact on all levels of crime!!
This has been a great thread. All it needs is a couple more rambling denunciations from Abbas to round things up...
Posted by: Mac at January 21, 2006 08:09 PM
Mac, Mac, Mac...
;-)
Posted by: tomax at January 21, 2006 08:23 PM
Hey, who has more fun than me?
Posted by: Mac at January 21, 2006 08:57 PM
** BREAKING NEWS FROM THE WESTERN STANDARD! **
- from Ezra Levant
Alphonse Gagliano had a criminal record before he received his post? RCMP Norman Inkster recommended he be fingerprinted to confirm?
This wasn't done?
Questions that demand immediate answers from the Liberal Party!
Is the "Libranos" more than a name?
Does anyone remember that former Liberal executive Daniel Dezainde stated to the Gomery Commission that Joseph Morselli, a close Gagliano friend, threatened his life?
Posted by: at January 21, 2006 09:28 PM
Another Liberal candidate (Susan Whelan - Essex) seems to be having serious ethical issues when she worked as a paid lobbyist helping acquire a $46 million grant for DaimlerChrysler.
Reject the Cookie has the details:
http://rejectthecookie.blogspot.com/
Another example of the MSM not doing their job!
Posted by: Slider at January 21, 2006 09:29 PM
Get to know him.
-Harper, 46, with a gray mop of hair neatly parted and sky blue eyes, carved out an early reputation as a brilliant theoretical economist who favored delving into policy books over the fierce combat of the political trenches.
His pasty demeanour prompted one Montreal newspaper recently to question his charisma, likening him to a "robot giving off about as much heat as an iceberg."
But as his Conservatives surged ahead in recent public opinion polls, he looked more relaxed on the campaign trail, even joking about his lack of charm.
Martin has branded Harper an "extremist" who wants to curtail abortion rights, reverse same sex marriage reforms, and stack Canadian courts with conservative judges hostile to mainstream Canadian values.
In late 2003, Harper succeeded in merging Canada's two rightist parties into the Conservative Party of Canada, but with little time to lay out a coherent electoral strategy, lost out to Martin in the last Canadian election in June 2004.
His campaign sank under the weight of his and others' controversial statements on abortion and gay marriage, allowing the Liberals to form a minority government.
This time round, Harper learned from past mistakes. His party has become more centrist, focused on fiscal initiatives instead of social conservatism while the fringe elements in its midst have been muzzled.
He promised tax cuts to middle class Canadians, more military spending and to devolve more power to the provinces.
Still, Harper has not changed his core political beliefs. He remains hostile to gay marriage and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change ratified by Canada.
The father of two is still seen as an intellectual forever in love with ideas, philosophy and history.
His only other known passion is ice hockey. Even during a hectic election campaign, he found time to work on a book on the history of a sport followed with feverish passion in frigid Canada.
Harper was born into a middle-class family in Toronto. His parents valued honesty and integrity above all else, he said.
At 18, he moved west to Alberta province to work for an oil company for two years, before enrolling in economic studies at the University of Calgary. There, he embraced conservative political values.
He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993, but quit politics in 1997 to work for a conservative lobby group, but returned to Ottawa in 2002 as head of the Canadian Alliance, a party born out of the ashes of the Reform Party.
He made it his mission to reunite Canada's fractured political right to challenge the Liberals' decade-long hegemony.
These words were copied from a YAHOO! news story. I don't agree with all of it, but it contains some good facts about our next PM (facts are a hard thing to find these days). Saying Harper is 'hostile' about anything is a bit rich.
Posted by: Chazz at January 21, 2006 09:30 PM
This election is the first time I've ever read any blogs but now I'm hooked. I'd like to thank all the people who put so much time and effort into this media. I've been following quite a few over the last few weeks and don't watch the MSM as much anymore.
As for the attack ads by the liberals, I found they had a profound affect on me. They were very moving. They were so forceful that I felt forced to donate a large sum (for me) to the CPC beyond what I had already given. I guess they had a positive affect but not the way Paulie wanted :)
I'm feeling frustrated at the moment as I've already voted and live in a secure Consrvative riding. I wish there was more I could do than just donate to the cause and wait. If I could get away I would have loved to travel to some riding where a tight race was happening and help out the Conservative candidate.
Sitting here in Calgary with fingers crossed,
Bill
Posted by: Bill at January 21, 2006 10:48 PM
Hey, CHECK THIS OUT! It’s ‘Godfather’ spoof election video: www.thejackproblem.ca that just got released.
It’s not your typical TV political ad – very funny and creative. Let me know what you all think…
Posted by: rethos at January 21, 2006 11:25 PM
Okay, this is a totally nerdy analogy, but....
To me, the Liberal party resembles the Roman Empire in it's dying days....
Think about it; the Emperors (leader) assumed they could rule forever and so took insufficent precautions against the increasingly well-organized barbarians. Usurption debased the office of the emperor, and turned the establishment into a set of factions, each vying to "replace" him (usually by assasination).
As the barbarians grew stronger, the Empire found that it could only survive by co-opting some of them and getting them to serve in the imperial armies. But this practice, in the end, only showed how weak the empire had become.
Gradually, the barbarians siezed more and more territory. Whole provinces were abandoned. Even in areas the empire still controlled, the local govenors found that the barbarians were getting more restless and wondered if they could hold on.
Eventually, the Empire was reduced to controlling little more than the core imperial cities, as the barbarians roamed the countryside freely. The "Empire" became a piece of fiction.
By the end, the "Emperor" was so pathetic that the barbarians didn't even bother killing him; he was no longer enough of a threat.
Of course, this story can end in one of several ways...
The "Church" (liberal media/ public serivce) may try to co-opt the barbarians by converting them to the one true faith of Trudeauism.
Frank McKenna may play Justinian, marching from the east in an attempt to restore the empire to it's former glory.
Alternatively, the "church" may try to restore the empire by christening a new emperor, a la Charlamange....
but for now, let's just sit back and enjoy the pillaging......
Posted by: GM at January 21, 2006 11:29 PM
rethos, since you asked, I think the video which you linked was not particularly imaginative or funny... and it's inaccurate to boot. The two party system hasn't existed in Canada since the 20s. Jack only wants to change the power dynamic because Canadians have shown a lack of enthusiasm for the NDP... aka Communism Lite.
Canada effectively has a one-party system. The Liberals run the show, stack the Senate, the Judiciary and the bureaucracy with their friends and cronies until their arrogance finally convinces Canadians to kick them out of office briefly... only to vote them back in again later.
The Conservatives have only had three extended terms in office since the 20s and one of those was with Mulroney in charge... Just what Canada needed... another millionaire from Quebec.
Let's hope Harper gets a majority and introduces fundamental changes so that bottom feeders like Martin and Chretien can't screw us again.
Posted by: Mac at January 22, 2006 01:13 AM
I have to agree with Mac, it wasn't particular funny, or accurate. Jack Layton has hung on to the 'third party' idea, under the impression that he might someday secure a minority or majority government. They're fine as an opposition party, but their ideals haven't worked out in government before - I doubt they would again.
I'm all for the Conservatives winning this, believe me. Even my longtime liberal family are jumping headfirst onto the Tory bandwagon - and to get them to do that... well, let's just say hell has to freeze over.
Guess those Liberals icing everybody for their money finally did the trick.
Go out and volunteer if you can, everyone, regardless of the party - get involved! :D
Posted by: Patricia at January 22, 2006 01:26 AM
Any one know what happened to Bourque's discusion forum? It's been down all day.
Another thing when the Gun Registry is scrapped, I'm going shopping...cause I can!
Posted by: eastern paul at January 22, 2006 02:27 AM
This just in:
mailing
$250 energy rebate cheques to prison inmates
In the words of this correctional officer: "I work to July to hand over all my
money to the taxman, and today I gave convicted criminals a rebate cheque. It's
all wrong. It's time we stood up and said enough is
enough."
Posted by: backhoe at January 22, 2006 08:10 AM
Canada Post has created a new stamp with a picture of Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The stamp is not sticking to envelopes, which enraged Martin, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing, a special government commission presented the following findings:
1) The stamp is in perfect order.
2) There is nothing wrong with the applied adhesive.
3) People are just spitting on the wrong side!
REMEMBER: Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed for very much the same reason.
Posted by: TheScout at January 22, 2006 08:14 AM
TOP 5 Winners and Losers (but really, these are in no particular order because both Harper and the Canadian public are equal winners)
Winners:
1. STEPHEN HARPER: Not only for defying the odds by beating the Liberals (and he will tomorrow night, of course), but for even making it possible by uniting the right by bringing Alliance and the PC Party together (credit to MacKay as well)
2. CANADIANS: For finally having the courage to stand up for change (to stand up for Canada), and to not buy into Martin's campaign of fear. (To me, it's gone beyond fear. It's now in the realm of threats and intimidation of the electorate, something that only reinforces in my mind - and hopefully to the rest of the electorate - why the Liberals have to be turfed out!)
3. JACK LAYTON: For not joining with the Liberals in their attempts to make their use of the "scary card" effective, realizing that for him to do so would only drive potential NDP voters (as well as some of their own base of support) back to the Liberals. And in that, credit to Layton for realizing that in order to truly build his party into possibly becoming a truly national alternative one day (hehehe - yeah, right!), he needed to hammer away at Liberal support, joining with the CPC, both like vultures, picking at the rib flesh from each side of the Liberal corpse.
4. THE LIBERAL PARTY and CANADIANS THAT SUPPORTED IT: Yes, your party will be defeated Monday night, but it's for the best. You will be the beneficiaries because you demand your party clean itself up - something that would NEVER happen had they won. Your party will come back better, stronger (not TOO strong, I hope) because your party will know that they can't take your vote for granted and that they will be punished severely (not as bad as the PC's were punished in '93 but that's just because we on the right have less tolerance for scandal and corruption than you Liberal supporters). But shame on those diehard 25-30% who would vote for the Liberals no matter what they do, and for using "corruption" as a reason for throwing out the Campbell-Mulroney Conservatives in '93, while being unwilling to do the same to your Liberals, justifying your continued support by saying, "They're all corrupt" and mantras like "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
5. JEAN CHRETIEN: Yes, Jean Chretien. Even though most of the blame for the sponsorship scandal goes to him, I'm glad to see - in some perverse way - "da little guy from Shawinigan" get his revenge by joining with all of us in watching the pathetic demise of Martin, once touted by some in the media as a PM who would win the greatest majority in Canadian history. *spit*
Losers:
1. PAUL MARTIN: For ... well, for being himself. 'Nuff said!
2. JOE CLARK: For choosing division over unison, selfishness over selflessness, the past over the future, and maintaining the status quo over change.
3. THE CBC: If it's a Conservative majority, let heads roll! (Okay. So it probably won't happen in the way I want it too, but a guy can dream, can't he?)
4. BELINDA STRONACH: BS will be taught a lesson that REAL principal, ethics and integrity is held in the hands of those who elect us. (BS should've sat as an independent and ran in a by-election, seeking her constituents' approval before joining the Liberals, instead of undemocratically representing them for 7 months for a party that finished in 2nd place. But she's going to learn a valuable lesson Monday night when her constituents teach her the true meaning of "democratic renewal".
Posted by: Bob at January 22, 2006 08:37 AM
I just want to thank everbody who takes part of, for me, this new world of blogging. I only got this old brain of mine to work on this computor thingee and first discovered Bourque, and through his site found out about bloggs. Every day I get home from work I pour two, sometimes three fingers, of Canadian whiskey over ice and sit down to read all things new. Man, it's been an eye opener. The msm sure don't do their jobs, for what ever reason. Again I want to thank all of you. I just don't know what happens here after the election. But I will be checking.
Posted by: Elwood at January 22, 2006 09:07 AM
This election has been about Paul Martin's ego. He was born and raised to be PM of Canada and he wanted to go down in history as Canada's best and longest serving PM.
I am sure his father constantly impressed on him that his whole life's work was to be PM, so he wanted to be PM in the worst way. He achieved that and will be remebered as one of the worst, for heading one of the shortest and as Mr DITHERS.
What a legacy. What a failure. Hopefully he will creep away with his tail between his legs into obscurity.
Posted by: Norman at January 22, 2006 10:56 AM
Regarding proportional representation: yes, it is an idea long overdue in Canada.
Provincially, the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario received 24% of the vote (52% turnout!!!!) yet hold 3 times the number of seats that the Conservatives hold. They gained only 11% and change more of the pop vote. Libs: 72 seats. Cons: 24 seats.
I hope all you great blogging tories will help us get rid of McGuinty in 2007 - lots of material there for mockery and shockery.
I am a conservative in outlook. I strongly believe in personal freedom. I am an Ontario dog owner. I look forward to your witty and incisive commentary re: my embarrassing province after this game is over.
Posted by: Caveat at January 22, 2006 11:15 AM
You really have to check this out....
Front page of this morning's Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
They say a picture is worth a thousand words...in this case I'd start with affected and work my way down through the dictionary to pathetic...
Posted by: Watcher at January 22, 2006 11:51 AM
First I have to get this off my chest. Why would anyone give print space to the flaming moonbat Maude Barlow. She is everything that the flaming moonbat left represents in dishonest mental gymnastics.
Next, the Zerb needs a proper fisking by some bright internet blogger on her article on the blogs. Her dismissive on both Kerry and the swift boat incident and Rathergate both deserve to be pummeled. Typical left wing clap trap, and unworthy of a reporter, but then again, who said she was a reporter I guess.
Posted by: Dwayne at January 22, 2006 11:52 AM
I think that tommorrow's results will come down to two feelings in a great number of undecided voters. Those two feelings are "fear" and "disgust". Fear of the Bush/Neocon/Fascist/Harper; or disgust with the Corrupt/Cheating/Pompous/Martin.
I predict that those who "fear" Harper will be more apt to stay home. I predict that those who feel "disgust" will be out to vote.
The problem will be the 905 neo-commmies who don't feel any disgust, and only fear. If they stay home, Harper wins big; if they come out, it'll be a minority.
Posted by: debris trail at January 22, 2006 11:57 AM
Proportional representation is NOT what we need.
What we need are run-offs one week after the initial vote in each riding where a candidate does not receive 50+1 % of the vote. That's the only way to get the true voice of the people in parliament.
And for those who argue that in such a scenario their candidate who finished 3rd or 4th, I say TOUGH! You have choice in the second vote. And if you don't want to vote in the second vote then DON'T!
You want true accountabilty in the system, that's achieved by your candidate being forced to receive 50+1 % of the vote and not as little as 35% -- a percentage that is sure to be reduced in the future by more parties adopted into the mainstream (the Greens are just the beginning ... wait 10-15 years).
Proportional representation is a crock! It's for those losers who can't accept victory, and want control of gov't (more to impede its function) even though the VAST majority of the public are given choice on the ballot and reject by overwhelming numbers what would be the benificiaries of PR.
Yes, we want a parliament like those in Italy, Israel and Japan!
Posted by: Mark at January 22, 2006 12:07 PM
"Yes, we want a parliament like those in Italy, Israel and Japan!"
Well, no, I'd prefer a Parliament like Germany, New Zealand or Scotland.
Runoffs, as Mark proposes, (the instant version is called AV)are nonsense. They still shut out legitimate voices supported by large numbers of voters. And in Canada, such a system would be the final triumph of the Liberal Party. (Think about it: the Libs are most people's second choice. If you can't have a Con and don't want an NDP, you vote Liberal. If you don't want a Con and can't have an NDP, you vote Liberal. I know there are exceptions, but they prove the rule.)
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 12:14 PM
The spin (manipulation) in Dawg's rebuttal comes in the form of terms like "legitimate" and "large numbers".
What constitutes "large numbers"? By virtue of being defeated in any given riding, the numbers simply aren;t "large" enough if, when given a choice, the constituents make another choice.
That's what it's all about. "Choice." I know PR advocates reject popular opinion, so they seek to devise ways to manipulate the system so as to get their "large numbers" of people with "legitimate" voices to be heard.
The paradox here is that those who advocate PR also endorse minority parliaments in our current system.
As we know, nothing gets done in minority parliaments without cooperation. Wit PR - an future invitation to really muck things up by making it inviting for more parties to enter the system - can only complicate things.
The solution is to have a two-party system. Not only does that ensure that each candidate receives 50+1% in his/her respective riding, but it also forces the party itself to address the issues from both ends of the spectrum of its political base if it wishes to remain in power.
Compromise is best acheived from within a party that knows it can only survive as one entity, rather than one that can win through a fractured, multi-party opposition.
Posted by: Mark at January 22, 2006 12:30 PM
Here's one way PR might be applied in Canada.
Reduce the current 308 seats to 300. Have another 100 for PR. PR becomes 25% of the House of Commons. Or give PR only 50 seats, it raises the standard to earn seats a bit higher.
I would be concerned about defeated MP's ending up as PR MP's.
Add in a reformed triple E Senate and more national referendums......and we might get back to being a healthy democracy.
Robert in Calgary.
Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2006 12:33 PM
"That's what it's all about. "Choice." I know PR advocates reject popular opinion, so they seek to devise ways to manipulate the system so as to get their "large numbers" of people with "legitimate" voices to be heard."
Well, no, we support popular opinion. That's why, for example, when 60% of NB voters claimed 100% of the seats a few years back, we figured that wasn't democratic. Silly us. When 60% of the voters voted for parties opposed to free trade in the Mulroney free trade federal election, Mulroney got a phony majority and rammed through free trade. Against "popular opinion."
If the Greens (for example) get 10% of the vote in a couple of years, why should they get no seats? Oh, yes, I forgot--we PR types who want them to be heard because 10% of the voters supported them "reject popular opinion."
Do your homework, Mark.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 12:48 PM
Robert thought connecting dots this way may have been a joke.
One could read the latest Jan 23rd Kevin Steele, *Married to the Mob* at Western Standard.ca
or
Andrew Coyne *How Scary*...*Frightster*...*This is scary*. also current Jan. 22nd.
These are respected thinkers.
Calgary: Immigration review board lets US citizen handgun smuggler with known arrest warrent go free into the streets of Calgary.
WHY? http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 22, 2006 12:54 PM
It's not simply being "heard" dawg with your ... 10%. It's when that's combined with other parties to usurp the will of the majority - parties that have NOTHING in common but can, by virtue of their combined numbers (again, even though they have nothing in common political, ideologically, philosophically, or otherwise, except to "oppose") prevent the "majority" party from implementing the mandate given to it by the people.
I'm a conservative, Dawg.
The changes I propose - to have 50+1+ - does not benefit my party. In fact, it benefits the left, because under such a system, NDPa and Green supporters are undoubtedly going to vote Liberal.
I don't have partisan interests unlike you (I assume you're a Green Party supporter or something).
If I choose to run as an MP, I would be very uncomfortable representing my riding as a member of the government with just 35% support, meaning that the majority of people in my riding would have rejected me.
I would feel even worse being an obstructionist voice in parliament representing 10% of the people.
What you have to do is realize that the "majority" of people don't agree with your views and either adapt/moderate those opinions instead of trying to adjust the odds by tweaking the rules of the system so that you win.
Posted by: Mark at January 22, 2006 01:24 PM
Scout *:14am - Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: Cheri at January 22, 2006 01:42 PM
Scout 8:14am - Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: Cheri at January 22, 2006 01:42 PM
The current system gives disproportionate power to 40% of the population but is more likely to produce political stability.
Proportional Rep gives disproportionate power to 11% of the population and produces political instability.
IMHO this is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
Posted by: Terry Gain at January 22, 2006 01:48 PM
Hey, Angry, Bourque has you on his front page, CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!
Posted by: Earl in Prescott at January 22, 2006 02:24 PM
Just a note on the campaign of fear and slander against Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
The lieberal campaign mgr. in this Riding is PC turncoat David Small, yes that David Small who is also lobbyist candidate Richard baloney's Campaign chair. All the dirt, from the "web of Lies" posted by his candidate on wikapedia (site now frozen because of excessive vandalism) bithday cards phoney issue, the bullshit about all-candidate meetings to the current attack, small is behind it. This is the dirtiest, sleeziest campaign, even for grits.
This was the lieberal plan all along. No platform, no positive vision for Canada, just dirty mud-slinging. The lieberals knew their candidate was a sacrifical goat and that they would use him to try to affect the national campaign.
The true face of the lieberal party is on display in this riding, and is it ever ugly.
For the sake of the future of our country, we must return a Conservative majority.
Posted by: James at January 22, 2006 02:46 PM
I liked Harper's reply to a recent "will you ban crossing the floor" question. He said that although it hurt when it happened to him he would oppose a ban because it would weaken (further?) the position of individual MPs and strengthen the position of the PM (him I expect) and Party.
This thoughtful answer shows that Harper understands how our Parliamentary system can and should work.
The individual MPs should have power since they are the elected 'representatives' of the people in their ridings. MP's in theory decide among themselves to chose a PM from within their numbers. If a PM were to die or retire, MPs would simply chose a replacement from within their number and Parliament would continue. "Parties" in our theoretical system have no legal status but rather (as the name suggests) are "social clubs" that individual MPs with current shared interests decide to belong to.
The power relationship described above is true in theory but inverted in our current practice. The PM and his PMO have become 'Presidential' and the Parties, with their unelected backroom gnomes, have unearned and unbalanced power over individual MPs.
Proportional Representation is a prize oxymoron like Civil Service or Military Intelligence. It may be hard to find Intelligence in Military, likewise there will be little Representation in Proportional.
PR inverts the meaning of 'Representation'. An MP today is a person who has stood before the other people of his riding and won his position, against all others, as their "Representative" in Parliament. A PR MP would stand before no one on particular, and win nothing on his own merit against no identifiable competitors. In Parliament he would 'represent' his Party, certainly not the electorate.
Instead of PR I advocate strengthening the power position of individual MPs by assigning the $1.45 or so per vote directly in trust to the individulal MP that won the votes, not to his party. He could then 'assign' a "Proportion" of funds to his Party so long as the Party continued to "Represent" his and his riding's general viwes and interests.
Wes
Posted by: Wes Warner at January 22, 2006 02:53 PM
As someone who has been involved with mainstream media for about 40 years I have predicted the rise of the bloggers, a phenomenon which snuck up on the media giants who were dismissive of what was going on around them.
The irony the media created the fertile ground which produced the blogging phenomena. How? By excluding the voices of the many people who want to have a say, who want to have their opinions heard and to access the ears of the nation.
A handful of publishers and editors figured they knew best what was news and who should have a voice. Well, the sheep have left the fold for good.
In arrogance readers and viewers have been fed a steady stream of pap, too often biased and slanted.
On how many occasions have we seen mainstream media have choosing sides, misrepresented events and people and are now paying the price. Newspaper readership falls by about 5 percent a year. Television must reach for the most debasing of programs to find an audience.
I well remember the hatchet job done on Steven Harper in the last election and the recent desperate campaign by CBC Newsworld to smear Harper to ensure another four years of Liberal support with our money.
Paul Martin's twisted, fear-mongering attacks on Harper and the Conservatives have not worked. This year I will get 99 per cent of the election coverage from the blogs. Why? They, for the most part, will have it first and have it right. Through them I will know how Newfoundland and Labrador have voted, who the Maritimes have chosen, where Quebec and Ontario placed their votes and so on. Out here in British Columbia we won't be subjected to the censorship of the past. Bloggers have reached a critical mass which will change how the news is delivered forever. And what's funny is the media biggies didn't even see it coming.
Bill McIntyre
Cariboo Region BC
Posted by: Bill McIntyre at January 22, 2006 02:59 PM
What is this crap on CBC?!a 30 minute speech by PMPM! Where do I complain about balance!
Posted by: Bobillyx at January 22, 2006 03:17 PM
Wes re: Harper. If that is from the Mansbridge CBC interview, I caught that too. It proves, I think, that the old reform ideals have 'evolved'. I believe it shows Harper has successfully brought together many groups and together they are forming a progressive party, willing to adapt to the needs of Canadians.
BTW; I think he also made a good and impressive point, to the audience and host, when he concluded that he'd like to see such reforms (hinted at Belinda) but when you really think them through they are not very practical or democratic.
Posted by: Cheri at January 22, 2006 03:18 PM
Wes:
"PR inverts the meaning of 'Representation'. An MP today is a person who has stood before the other people of his riding and won his position, against all others, as their "Representative" in Parliament. A PR MP would stand before no one on particular, and win nothing on his own merit against no identifiable competitors. In Parliament he would 'represent' his Party, certainly not the electorate."
I think we've discussed this in the distant past. You are caricaturing PR. I favour a mixed system, myself: one in which ridings continue, and elect representatives either as before (MMP) or in multi-member constituencies (STV). In the latter case, no "party lists" even enter into it, because there are none. In the former case, there are a number of ways in which "top-up" lists can be created, including an open list system.
Mark:
"I would feel even worse being an obstructionist voice in parliament representing 10% of the people."
"It's not simply being "heard" dawg with your ... 10%. It's when that's combined with other parties to usurp the will of the majority - parties that have NOTHING in common but can, by virtue of their combined numbers (again, even though they have nothing in common political, ideologically, philosophically, or otherwise, except to "oppose") prevent the "majority" party from implementing the mandate given to it by the people."
Gosh, an "obstructionist voice" "usurping the will of the majority."
There usually is no majority. In fact, since World War I, only four of the fifteen majority governments elected were elected by majorities. Since the mid-sixties, only one of the eight majority governments was elected by a majority. In 1957 and 1979, a majority of seats went to a party that placed second in the over-all vote.
This is, no doubt, the "will of the majority" you're prating about--Parliamentary majorities, put there by a minority of the electorate. Against which a minority of sitting MPs, elected in toto by a majority of the voters, are "obstructionist." What Orwellian language we have here!
My version of democracy? Votes don't get wasted, and the House of Commons reflects the will of the voters, not just a well-situated minority of them. If ten per cent of the voters think the Green Party best speaks for them, why should their political viewpoint be shut out of Parliament?
Btw, I'm not Green. And I should note that Fair Vote Canada, a national organization promoting electoral reform, has members from all political parties on board--a wide range, from Walter Robinson and Hugh Segal to David Suzuki and Judy Rebick.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 03:19 PM
The BC government had a citizen's committee examine numerous electoral models and proposed a form of PR to replace the current FPTP model. I read as much as I could about PR and came to the conclusion that PR does allow small groups the possibility of gaining seats BUT in every case which I could find throughout the world, PR effectively paralysed the government as minorities & coalitions were the rule rather than the exception. If you think there's partisan politics now, imagine how it'll be when every one-issue party out there has a seat...
Believe it or not, a two party system is more moderate and fair. If someone has a great idea and wants to bring it to government, let them join one of the large parties and defend their ideas within the party BEFORE bringing it to the people at an election. The truly great ideas will be improved by the challenge. The truly bad ideas will die.
The only part that frightens me about going to a true two party system is that the NDP and the Fiberals would be forced together and they might just out-number us at this point.
The Conservative Party took the best of the PC and the CA aka R, brought forward the best ideas and tossed the bad ideas. Much to the chagrin of Paul Martin, the Conservatives are now stronger and will get stronger still as more and better quality candidates who were turned off by the old parties are attracted to the new party.
The only reason Martin won the 2004 election was because he jumped in before the Conservatives had a chance to resolve their policies. The past 18 months demonstrated the new strength of the new Conservative Party. The future looks bright!!
Posted by: Mac at January 22, 2006 03:38 PM
"BUT in every case which I could find throughout the world, PR effectively paralysed the government as minorities & coalitions were the rule rather than the exception."
Germany? New Zealand?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 04:23 PM
Dawg...
You completely took what I said out of context. MY majority is a TRUE majority: 50+1.
Under my change of rules, you are prevented from saying that someone with "40%" weilds such power.
I know it's in your interest - as a proponent of PR - to take what people like me say completely out of context.
My system of 50+1 (a vote run-off to determine the winner one weeks after the initial vote for those ridings that does not have a candidate passing the 50+
1 mark) is the fairest, and one that does not allow for you to complain that the majority of constituents are not being represented.
Again, I say. If you don't like either candidate in the run-off, then don't vote! That's your choice.
A system that forces 50+1 prevents scurlious indviduals from winning ridings with as little as 35%.
And what PR system invite is the growth of new parties, which further diminishes the percentages by which a candidate needs to win.
I think that hurts, not helps, the democratic process.
50+1 is such a high threshold that we can pretty much assure that those sent to parliament under such a system are more likely to be integral people (when we had the Alliance and PC Party, it reduced the margin by which a scurilous Liberal candidate needed to win his/her respective riding.)
And conversely, if an "unethical" person is sent to parliament, it makes it more difficult for him/her to get re-elected under the 50+1 rule.
That rule forces MPs to listen to their constituents. As well, the two party system encourages productivity in parliament because it draws the mebers of each party closer to the centre of their respective ideology.
Posted by: Mark at January 22, 2006 04:31 PM
"You completely took what I said out of context. MY majority is a TRUE majority: 50+1."
With the result being the further entrenchment of one party, as noted before.
But surely there is more to Parliament than a reluctant 50% + 1 result (I say reluctant because AV or its equivalent, the run-off, will reflect many second preferences. PR, on the other hand, will inevitably deliver the first preferences of voters.) The House of Commons ought to mirror the voting landscape of Canada. Forcing a kind of artificial majority on the country doesn't improve democracy any, if by "democracy" you mean more than a narrow, formulaic "majority rules" idea.
Right now there are no political majorities in Canada. There are five viable parties (do you want to force a two-party system on the electorate? Because we sure as hell aren't evolving towards one). All of those voices should continue the national debate in Parliament, between elections.
I don't know where you're getting your "facts" about PR, but not from the real world. There are only four or so FPTP regimes among the world's industrial democracies. All the rest have adopted some form of PR. Thresholds are one means of keeping out tiny partylets; another is a change in the political culture that invites coalitions.
"Ewww! Coalitions?" I hear you cry. Well, the Liberal Party is a kind of coalition; so is the Conservative Party. Coalitions, as the German example demonstrates, can be remarkably stable. Indeed, the FPTP system invites instability in two ways: 1) a slight shift in public opinion--just a few percentage points--can produce wild swings in seat-capture, and hence in public policy-making. 2) FPTP exacerbates regionalism, because that's really the only viable strategy once a national party has entrenched itself across the country. You can get nearly as many votes, and sometimes more votes, as the successful party, and get far fewer seats than the electorate has shown preference for, if those votes are spread out across the country. Hence the strategy is to concentrate your votes, and you do that by exaggerating regional issues.
Hence Quebec; hence the West, with its "alienation." Put some kind of mixed system into operation, and I guarantee that the Bloc will get only its proper number of seats, with other voices from Quebec being heard as well; and the West will see support in places like Ontario, where the CPC gets a solid number of votes and a mere two seats.
Run-offs will do nothing but make the current situation worse.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 04:48 PM
"Forcing a kind of artificial majority on the country doesn't improve democracy any, if by "democracy" you mean more than a narrow, formulaic "majority rules" idea."
I meant, of course, "unless by 'democracy' you mean..."
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 04:50 PM
I say, replace them all with computers and we vote on all the issues...no more of these electoral spin doctored systems.
Buh-Bye Paul Martin...take that champagne socialist, phony social conscienced con artist blatherskyte Mr Bono with you on your way out, will ya?
:D
Posted by: David Lockwood at January 22, 2006 04:54 PM
Aw, I give up. I was right the first time. Back to sleep. Sheesh.
What I'm getting at is this: democracy isn't just "majority rules." It is, or should be, a living culture of ideas and discussion that involves everyone. There are many, not merely two, points of view on every question, and the greater the opportunity for presenting those ideas, the more vibrant the democracy.
FPTP doesn't deliver in this respect. Neither does a run-off system. It's not all about who gets to rule. It's about representation of other points of view as well.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 22, 2006 04:54 PM
Image is Important, Results are Everything that is the message the Liberals forgot in this campaign.
TIZ
Posted by: TIZReporter at January 22, 2006 05:54 PM
the happenings north of the 49th are going to make interesting reading over tne next few days, possibly weeks to come, even more interesting than the mess we call politics in the states. good luck.
Posted by: dave at January 22, 2006 06:12 PM
SES numbers
January 22 (today) only
Conservatives 33.2
Liberals 30.4
NDP 22.2
BQ 9.4
Green 5.6
MOE 5.3
Undecided 12.5
Most interesting, amongst very likely voters, for today only:
Conservatives 32.7
Liberals 31
NDP 23.3
Bloc 9
Greens 4
MOE 5.8%
Undecided 9.9
Three day roll
January 20, 21, 22
Conservatives 36.4
Liberals 30.1
NDP 17.4
BQ 10.6
Green 5.6
MOE 3.1
Undecided 12.5
Posted by: patrick at January 22, 2006 08:31 PM
I hope those Sunday numbers are the twentieth poll...
Posted by: at January 22, 2006 08:42 PM
No, they're real enough. Just a very small sample - 400 - on a Sunday, when historically SES numbers always reflect a higher than expected Liberal vote. For some reason, fewer Conservatives seem to hang around the house on Sunday afternoon to answer questions from pollsters. Go figure.
Still, it will energize their people, and more of them will show up to do election day duties as a result.
Posted by: patrick at January 22, 2006 08:49 PM
400 isn't accurate at all, as far as polling goes. The minimum number of people polled for a truly acceptable accurate estimate of the true percentage of who will vote for who, is 1500.
They're less than a third of that, and only a smidge over one quarter.
So I wouldn't put much stock in those numbers, Patrick, regardless of what they say.
Posted by: Patricia at January 22, 2006 09:01 PM
Dr.Dawg: Good comments.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at January 22, 2006 10:26 PM
Dr. Dawg, here's a quick review of the political situation in New Zealand. Tell me if this sounds easy and functional to you.
The current Prime Minister is Helen Clark of the Labour Party. She has served two complete terms as Prime Minister and has begun her third. On 17 October 2005 she announced that she had come to a complex arrangement that guaranteed the support of enough parties for her Labour-led coalition to govern. The core of the coalition is a cabinet consisting of Labour Party ministers and Jim Anderton, the Progressive Party's only MP. In addition to the parties represented in cabinet the leaders of New Zealand First and United Future are to be appointed as Ministers outside Cabinet. An arrangement of this kind has never been attempted before in New Zealand.
A further arrangement has been made with the Green Party, which has given a commitment not to vote against the government on confidence and supply. This commitment assures the government of a majority of seven MPs on confidence.
The Leader of the Opposition is National Party leader Don Brash who was formerly Governor of the Reserve Bank. Also in opposition are the M®°ori Party and ACT New Zealand.
In Germany's elections this year, Angela Merkel took literally weeks to organize and negotiate a Grand Coalition and, even then, she only succeeded because Gerhardt Schroeder stepped aside for her.
Can you imagine Paul Martin stepping aside for anyone? Elections and electioneering waste enough time and money as it is. Can you imagine putting the business of government on hold for a month or so after every election until they can figure out who will be in charge?
I stand by my position. PR creates more inequity and problems than it resolves.
Posted by: Mac at January 22, 2006 10:42 PM
I don't see much of a problem here, in either of the cases you mention. The business of governance goes on apace--the Netherlands was once without a government for three months, if I remember rightly, but no one noticed, really.
So some fussing and fuming happens--so what? What do you imagine goes on within the caucuses of de facto coalitions like the "big-tent" Liberal party? What calculations go into its cabinet-making? In cases of minority Parliaments, like the one we're getting tomorrow, how do the various parties come to some agreement to allow a couple of years of stable government?
Seems to me it's the same problem (divided electorate) resolved by what are fundamentally similar means--horse-trading and cobbled-together agreements and a lot of compromise. The system under PR is just more transparent--we see the sausage being made, as it were. NZ now has an agreement that will allow effective governance for a reasonable period of time. Where's the problem?
As for the German experience in particular, the political culture is such that stability is more important than the ego of one politican. That's why we have seen stable German coalitions lasting as long as 19 years.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 23, 2006 01:14 AM
You mentioned Germany and New Zealand as examples of PR. I merely did some cursory checks and found their governance was, as I'd suggested, made up of hastily thrown together coalitions and strange bedfellows. IMHO it's a weaker form of government and fraught with problems.
Minority governments in Canada typically have a life-span of about 18 months. Are you prepared to go to the polls every 18 months? I hope not.
The actual mechanism of government, as you say, continues despite the lack of attention of the government. Don't you find that disquieting? These unelected faceless bureaucrats running the shop unsupervised. Since most of them are Liberal appointees, I find this prospect uncomfortable.
The Liberal Party is a coalition; the Conservative Party is a more recent coalition; it's not a bad thing. What I'm suggesting is coalition making should happen at party policy conventions rather than the ballot box or in a mad scramble after the balloting is done.
I don't want a one-issue party being brought into the parliament. That's why the Bloc isn't taken seriously as a federal party- their parameters prevent them from forming government. Likewise, the NDP with their form of Communism Lite.
I want well-rounded parties who are going to have the flexibility to make government work... on both sides of the floor.
Posted by: Mac at January 23, 2006 03:08 AM
 
|
|
