What happened to Kim Campbell and John Turner is about to happen to Martin. Too bad that he did not really cleanup the dirt leftover by Chretien&Co. No sure if any "leader" has actually ever been able to cleanup the previous leader dirt. I welcome the Conservative cleanup job but am quite worried about the excess that majority governments always run into.

Gee, Rafe, if you are such a big fan of the federal Greens, you should get involved in the party. Then, you might know who some of their candidates are. Har Har!

Power corrupts and absolute powere corrupts absolutely, this best describes the Liberal party. Like Campbell's lib's, the Feds are as rotten as they come, believing that power is annointed by god - that is until they get thrown out of office.

But what a choice:

The corrupted Liberal Party, full of crooks, footpads, and greedy bastards.

The new Conservative party, a party of ne'er do wells, carpet baggers, neocons and those who believe.

The NDP, a special interest party which may have done well in the 1950's, not 2006!

Canada is at a crossroads and the populace, mostly politically immature, will fumble by voting Harper in with a majority, which in another 5 years lead us back to a minority!

Like Rafe, I'm voting Green, simpley as a protest.

The Liberal party needs a very long rest! They seem to be without any new ideas, not close to the people, and have just relied on their sense of entitlement.

I look forward to a Conservative government whose polices seem much more centralist neither mid right or mid left. We will see how they do in the next while as there are a huge number of issues left on the desktops that the Liberals never addressed.

The shallow thinkers should try to think this one through.

If Harper wins a minority, Quebec will get some form of special status. The Cons base in the west will demand and get the same special provincial status. All the social supports and programs in Canada, from EI to old age pensions, to health care will become balkanized with only the wealthy benefiting. Welcome to the world of HMO's. Working folks will once again (or continue to) get screwed as we drift rapidly downstream into the maw of the beast to the south.

If Harper wins a majority, all of the above will happen, just faster. Anyone who thinks that the Straussian Calgary school is not the puppeteer in this farce should give their heads a shake.

For the doom-and-gloomers:

Given that the change in worldwide economics is advancing and that no single 'government' can make this change go in a different direction.

Given that the levers of governance are starting to crack (in that, as a political leader you can no longer 'own' the mass-media and expect that to control the information of the masses, as the internet makes everyone accessible to everyone).

It matters little, in the long run, whether the CPC or the LiEberals or the NDP are 'in charge' right now. For the masses of 'Canada' the current social programs cannot continue to be funded to the levels that they were in the 70's-90's; moreover the 'social safety net' is badly frayed all over due to long-term un-funded liabilities and mixed policies.

All these factors, changing global economics, less ability to 'hoodwink' the populace, and the inevitable decline in the ability of the central 'government' to keep its financial promises (without mortgaging the future) make smaller soverign entities more able to respond to the needs of thier constituents. This makes the unweildy enormous landmass nations difficult to control and their responses to continued changes in global conditions slower, thus less available for the constituents of those large nations. It is inevitable that Canada as a single nation on the globe will become many nations, then even smaller soverign entities (perhaps a kind of city-state around the large cities).

None of the political parties can prevent this break-up, only one of them is prepared to embrace it and is at least forcing a discussion about what we will do when the break-up happens.

The problem with our 'social programs' is that they seem to benefit bueaucrats more than the people they intend to support.

Example:

Harper's transit transit rebate; though looks good from the top, it penalizes car drivers (especially in areas where no public transit exists) and subsidies poorly run transit operations, such as TransLink, that need high fares to support the badly run organization operation.

National child care; looks good from the top, but penalizes stay-at-home parents while subsidising two working adult families. Maybe we are bing taxed too much to support traditional families.

Universal health care; sounds good, but we can never afford it.

I think Murdock is right, Canada will break up and sooner than anyone thinks. Look at Cambell's and Klines policies and luv-affair with the Americans, very scary. One can almost say, agents of the USA, with Harper the chief Quissling.

Murdock:

Do you really think tribalism is where we are heading?

How is embracing the break-up of Canada going to help?

You should really sign your name to your posts and contact the mainstream media so that you can get the word out. A vote for the Conservatives means a vote for Tribalism.

Watching Martin dodge the local question put to him and how his staffers handled it, I almost felt sorry for the local Liberal candidates, it’s never pleasant when your boss stabs you in the back. I noticed to in an interview that Anne McClellan admitted that she was not informed about the “Not withstanding clause” announcement before it broke, gee when the PM doesn’t even tell his most trusted troops what’s happening.

Had a talk with my local Liberal candidate and I will give him credit for not bad mouthing his leader, despite the very evident frustration he was feeling.

Well since the PM likes to lie to Canadians, I guess it’s not a leap to think that he would lie or “forget” to tell them about his strategy to his own people. I don’t find anything honest about Martin or the Liberals. Just finished watching a old video of Anne McClellan telling the reporter: “We have no intention of banning handguns, that’s just a bunch of gun owners overreacting”

Yea right, lying in the video age is going to bite ya.

I've also just voted in the Advance Poll - for the Green Party. Unlike Grumpy's vote for the Greens, mine is not a protest vote. It's a vote FOR the Greens.

I'd grown weary of the spin, media sound bites, ponderous pundits and loose-lipped leaders, so was relieved when the party platforms came out.
I based my decision on a comparison of those because what is actually written in a party's platform is SUPPOSED to be a statement of party intentions and a reflection of party philosophy.

The GPC's platform stands out as the most sane and believable.

This opinion piece right here is what's wrong with the media. This was a 4-week election but because of the polls, everyone's now only commenting on how the Liberals lost it. Sure, Martin's notwithstanding clause announcement was on-the-fly and it reeks of desperation, but what I haven't read or heard anywhere is whether the idea is a good or bad one and why. Forget about it not being in their policy manual. That's irrelevant. Save that for after the election. It's lazy and irresponsible "journalism" to assume the result before it's happened.

And yet murdock, Canada's GNP has risen. Supposedly we are wealthier than ever. Some would say this is only on paper and ignores externalized costs but regardless we should be more able to pay for good programs than ever before.

If our GNP had actually fallen I would agree with you but we are not poorer, we are richer.

There is no point in you continuing to fight the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The nation-state is here and doing fine. It has more resources and more popular glue than ever before. It has been almost 400 years of power being wielded by the nation-state and I see no end in sight.

There is nothing inevitible about the break-up of Canada into city-states. Where do we see this in the world now? If your theory is correct then weaker states should already have broken up into smaller entitites. Yet the reverse seems to be occurring, nations are forming into larger economic trading blocs.

Which party is so deluded? Which party is campaigning on a policy of taking us back to a time prior to the Thirty Years War where we'll have the Bishopric of Regina and the Margrave of Calgary?

Seems to me there is a better than even chance that Harper will form a majority government. The real parallels, in my opinion, are the 1957 and 1958 elections. The issue then, as now, was a Liberal government that had been in power too long and which had grown corrupt and arrogant. The scandal (and the corruption) was over the awarding of contracts to friends of C.D.Howe. Although King had given way to St Laurent after the war the electorate saw him and no different and Lester Pearson was arrogant and unconvincing as a new broom. The nation accepted Diefenbaker's promises to provide a fresh start. The 1957 election gave Diefenbaker a minority and the 1958 one provided him with a landslide.

I don't think there'll be a landslide this time because the dynamics have changed - chiefly as a result of the Quebec situation and the presence of the Bloc. Unfortunately, Harper may usher in a government that will be every bit as bad for the country as Diefenbaker's was...given the aspirations of Quebec (and certain other provinces) it may well be fatal for our future as a united entity.
That problem's not Harper's creation but he may well lack the vision and the sensitivity to deal with it, coming, as Diefenbaker did, from the west. The politics of the west, unfortunately, is still coloured by resentment more than anything else and that makes it difficult for politicians who start out in that frame of mind to actually work for the betterment of the whole country.

A word on the economy; how much has the black market & drug dealing skewed the market place?

Casino's are a great money laundering organization, where governments happily encourage gambling to get their share of illegal money.

"Black" money is used to buy services and goods for cash, or pay wokers for cash. I know of several people who work 3 to 4 days a week for wages and 2 or 3 days for 'cash' and make far more for 'cash', thab regular wages, but of course the tax man gets 'his' from the regular wages.

All this money is spent, much on big ticket items, which can be easily converted back to cash. The tens of billions of dollars made on the 'black' market must be badly skewing our ecconomic forecasts!

I don't know what all the speculation is about.

"It ain't over till it's over" Yogi Bera

Chris H doesn't understand why I voted Green.In neither English speaking debate was there a question on the environment. This critical issue goes untouched by those who would lead us.

I am not a member of the Green Party and don't even know the name of their candidate in my riding - at least in part because his/her name isn't on their lawn signs.

I voted Green, as did Wendy, because as long as they get 2% of the vote they will get $1.75 in federal election money to carry the deadly serious questions surrounding the environment.

My options were these - vote for someone who, if elected, will merely be a cipher constantly doing as he is told or make a contribution to the well being of my community and country.

Yes, just what is Conservative Party candidates going to do about fish farms and their degradation of the environment.

No no, I don't heat a thing, why? They don't give a damn, because right-wing Christian types think god will solve it, just pry some more!

No environmental comments from the NDP, Liberals, & conservatives, so bloody sad!

Rafe,
Certainly don't think there's anything wrong with voting Green - especially if you think the country has a future. I'm just not so sure anymore.

Sorry to disagree Rafe, but the environment is not an issue because it is a no-win item for any candidate. Besides, we are so far removed from nature that it only makes sense to pave it over. Few will miss it because so many of us have no idea what has already been lost.

Great piece, by the way, Wallace. Just gotta follow the money... and the puppet strings.

That inevitably that Murdock refers to is only made inevitable because of those who relentlessly hold to their self-interested belief in it, in other words, it serves their purpose to do so. It's the same jargon Campbell used here in BC...that nothing is working...everything is falling apart....our education system... our medical system..on and on.

It is precisely because of that repetitively voiced neo-con view that our social infra-structure is faltering. First the propaganda, then the very calculated moves to weaken the system, induced faltering, in order to bring in privatization. Campbell, Harper, all use the same mode of operation...that's why these so-called BC Liberals are voting Conservative. They don't even see the hypocritical irony of that act...no surprise... when political policy is based on the shallow waters of self-interest.

Those self-interests being in a concern for the health and welfare of corporations, not people...in a a corporate infrastructure that necessitates the loss of our social safety net and the fracturing of Canada as it now exists into mere franchises for multi-national corporate interests.

The neo-con interests, if you think about it, all involve the world of material things, dead things. That fervently held view is a threat to all that is alive...(yes, even neo-cons themselves but they don't see it). That view has now become an alien force to life, but not somewhere out there to be feared...but here among us, a malignant and deadly world view that holds the capability of destroying life on this planet as we know it.

Rafe has explained why he is voting Green very well.

Over the past several years, he has become somewhat of an environmentalist. By voting Green, he is providing them with $1.75 to press the government on environmental issues. Plain and simple.

The only problem is that Canada's environmentalists are a bunch of idealistic whacko's.

Last year, I had the opportunity to travel through SE Asia, India and China. During this trip, I was able to discover that it isn't the SUVs in Suburbia, or Encana causing the world's environmental problems.

The smog, pollution and waste in the emerging economies was overwhelming. It was enough to turn a white T-shirt brown by days end. Cities like Bombay, Dehli, Bangkok, old Saigon, Beijing and Soeul are polluting the world. Worse, people don't seem to be overly concerned. These same countries are still whale hunting, creating a demand for the killing of Eagles, and torturing animals.

Global warming is real, and the environmentals are urging us to waste billions of dollars on a science project (Kyoto) - without any regard for finances.

Kyoto is un-proven and involves primarily developed countries - which are not the source of the problem.

The only way to combat this is for the United States and EU to restrict trade with the offenders (i.e. China) until they abide by more stringent environmental regulations.

Of course, we would never do that because it would quadruple the cost of textiles.

So, the worlds environmental problems are beyond our borders and environmentalists only seem to focus on trees and fish farms.

I know every bit helps, but reducing the number of driving lanes on the Burrard Street bridge is not going to do anything for global warming. If we are going to do something, we have to go after the root of the problem and not George Bush.

That being said, while I am sensitive about the environment (to a degree) - I am by no means an environmentalist. I am tyring to point out that Canadians are oblivious and narrow-minded.

I will be voting for Mr. Harper because I want Canadians to pay fewer taxes, and better promote business in Canada.

'A vote for the Conservatives means a vote for Tribalism.' = desperate lefty blather.

Can we spell proportional representation? Some form of it?

I think you better lay off the hard stuff Eddy.

I have tried to educate myself and make an "informed" decision re the Greens. To this end, I have taken the time to read through the Green Platform and I hope the people who are commenting here, have actually done the same thing.

While I strongly agree with a number of their Environmental concerns/proposals, they start to lose me on the following issues;

I think they go too far in terms of what they feel Governments should be responsible for. I know it is a real stretch, but the "C" word (Communism) kept popping in to my head. No need for all you Greens to light your hair on fire, I did say it was a real stretch - I just felt there was too much big brother in there for my liking.

They say very little on crime that is not already out there - other than going soft on first time offenders.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, giving even more powers to the UN is certainly not the answer I am looking for.

And financially, there is a real hole. Raising the UI benefits? Give me a break. We are already paying way to much into that program. The Lib's have been milking it for years and years. No thanks...

"MASSIVE" investments into public transportation scares me (anybody say money pit) and this talk of shifting our economy to an environmentally based, renewable resource model, needs more than just nice sounding catch phrases and the "warm and fuzzies" to pull it off. I know it might feel good to a Greenie, but creating a business climate whereby nailing a corporations (Mining, Logging etc..) pelt to the wall, is a goal, would have a negative effect on investment.

Although it may "feel" nice, there is not enough there for me to take them seriously - yet.

"this talk of shifting our economy to an environmentally based, renewable resource model, needs more than just nice sounding catch phrases and the "warm and fuzzies" to pull it off."

I agree. When are we going to start? Tomorrow, the next day? Two days... or just too late.

Mabellbc, I'm afraid I've overlooked any logic you may have tried to stuff into that last post.

First you tell us the world's environment, based on evidence you yourself have collected in Asia, is going down the shutes.

Then you blast Canadian environmentalists for focusing on Canadian environmental issues.
Narrow minded, I think you referred to them as.

Then you openly note that only George Bush can do anything about it (for which you might be right this one time.

But then you go and spoil it all once again by telling us the Americans won't do a damned thing to stop the destruction.

And when it appears you can't get any lower, you reach new depths by calmly announcing you will be voting for George Bush's Canadian farm team Jan. 23.
That's nice, but just what are you planning to do to help protect the environment from Bush or Stephen Harper?

I trust any reply you can offer will be just a bit less narrow-minded than what you've offered so far.

Wallace & Lynn: You are both right again, as I've grown to expect.

Maybellbc: The green party school teacher in my riding is no wacko... but check out the Con rep. in my riding.

"It's a sincere question. Why do we need [the CBC]? Why should we have it?"

- Jim Abbott, Conservative Party Heritage Critic, National Post, February 5th 2002. Abbott believes the CBC English-language service should be scrapped and some of its newsgathering functions transferred to CBC Newsworld

Its like saying that if the Cons have a majority government and they don't like what our own government media is saying, get rid of it. That's what I would do if it was my agenda to muzzle the ox that treads out the grain... at everyone elses expense.

http://www.intheirownwords.ca/tories.html

Its worth a look. Anyone who is seriously considering voting for the Cons should check out this site and if you support these Con statements, well... lets just say that I know I'm not alone when I say I don't think much of political reps who are biggots, racists, sexists, crooks, liars or anyone else who lives by double standards and conflicts of interest and supports them.

This much is certain. Everyone posting here is as transparent as glass in terms of who they support and why.

The reality that envirionmental issues are just beginning to come on the radar explains how much we don't know as a whole. Physical environments are just a part of it. The substance that makes what is physical, emotional, mental, ideological or spiritual, all have their roles to play in the media and much of it is corrupted by bias and misinformation.

To know what we know about the true dangers to life's environments and not be an environmentalist, speaks volumes in terms of where we are at in terms of growth as individuals and groups in this nation of nations. Its the same old same O. Good individuals serve others, including themselves. Piss poor individuals serve only themselves, reeking of double standards and conflicts of interests.

Rafe: Voting for colors is one thing, true, but to avoid corruption and scandals, we have to vote for the best individuals in our ridings. It would do you some good to know the individual rep's you are voting for and against. It did me some good and solidified my choices, especially with a phone call or emails to the rep in my riding.

brain,

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

Silly Tyee didn't wait for my comment.

The article in the link says we're already past the point of no return as far as the environment goes.

mabell says, the whole world is trashing the environment, why don't we trash our own before they do? Kinda has a logic all its own dunnit?

I think we should grow a new environment anyway, this old one is looking kinda spotty, even run-down.

3 NEW POLLS out today with accompanying stories appear contradictory:

Ekos, published in the Tor. Star finds the Cons have peaked and Libs starting a comeback, with a 6 point spread between Cons. and Libs, nationally.

Ipsos puts Cons 12 points above Libs., but it agrees with Ekos, as far as Ont. goes at least, that the Cons. have passed their peak there and Libs are starting to claw their way back.

The Strategic Counsel poll(Gregg) (in the Globe)gives Cons a 13 pt. lead, but is the odd one out , especially the story accompanying the poll which tries to ram home that Cons have a shot at majority.
The Globe story reads very suspiciously to me,
avoiding the citing of specific Ont #s, which, the other 2 polls suggest shows the Libs recovering and Cons. losing ground in all important Ont. The Globe article, full of Allan Gregg quotes, comes off as deliberately misleading, with an agenda. Despite the Globe endorsing the Cons in an editorial,
I expected better from the Globe's coverage.

The Star/Ekos article too appears a bit misleading in actually holding out hope the Libs can make a meaningful comeback (wishful thinking at this point it seems).

Taking the 3 polls together, the evidence seems to point to a strong Cons minority, but not a majority (sorry Allan and the Globe!).

Read for yourself:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137451825284&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=b565036e-4208-4366-bd9b-7162ca2b91cc&k=72336
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060117/ELXNPOLL17/TPFront/TopStories

The Herald (the Calgary Canwest Global newspaper)says they will anounce who they will endorse on thursday. Gee, I wonder who it will be? They have beent the unpaid publicists for the Conservatives for over 20 years.

With the cons bringing up abortion and marriage we know they have not changed. They are not moderates.

Allan,

That was a bit of a rant - what I was meaning to convey is that environmentalists support and push for the Kyoto Accord - as they are rightly concerned about climate change.

We have socialists trying to remove traffic lanes from major arteries - and the green party opposing every bit of infrastructural development - due to emissions and climate change.

Well - Canadians can do very little to prevent global warming. If we want to stop climate change, we have to tackle the root of the problem.

China, India and the 3rd world is going through an industrial revolution. Furthermore, the developing world also represents over 1/2 of the world's population.

Their revolution is driven by our (developed world) demand for their cheap products. In order for them to continue to thrive, we will have to continue to demand their goods.

If we boycott their goods until they improve their environmental record, they would clean up their act - or produce and less - either way decreasing harmful emissions.

The flip-side to this is that goods would be far more expensive.

The U.S. has to lead the charge - being the world's largest consumer.

Kyoto - the yanks aren't involved (necessary) nor is the third world (even more necessary). Furthermore, this is a very expensive - unproven science project.

Why I am voting Harper - I have bigger concerns at this point in my life than global warming. While it is something which MUST be addressed - I prefer tax cuts and economic incentives.

Quite frankly, my investment portfolio will perform better under Harper if I ever return to Canada. I also believe he will be better for business and professional opportunity. Hopefully, he will address the brain-drain.

I, myself am a victim of the brain drain. I have been living in the US for just over two years now - why? Because I get paid more and taxed less.

I hope to return to my beloved Canada, but won't do so until I see a land of opportunity. A land which promotes investment, risk-taking and work ethic.

AND NO! I do not support George Bush. He is an ideological, irresponsible conservative - an anomoly. It is unfair to portray Harper as such. Why don't people compare him to the successful Australian PM?

Maybe I was born in the wrong country.

It occurs to me that elections are perceived to be like referenda; the winning party declares that it has a mandate to enact all of its platform. The losers tacitly endorse this perspective by declaring that the winner only had a mandate to do such-and-such, not to go so far!

Since I agree with over 50% of the NDP platform, I guess that makes me an NDPer, but what I'd really LIKE to vote for is the party that persuades me that they are the most prudent and talented administrators and managers.

For policy decisions that really matter -- whether to join the so-called war on terror, which international treaties to ratify, which to reject -- I am totally dissatisfied with the idea of accepting any party's platform in toto. I want such issues to undergo public trial, with the best arguments and evidence submitted, and then voted upon.

I think that this is what the House of Commons is supposed to do, but I ain't seeing it.

Can I vote for the Tyee?

oh geez that's rich. That's like wondering who the Vancouver Sun will endorse. Or the National Post.

mabell

I worked in the US too a decade back but I didn't think of it as a brain drain, especially in my case. Its just to be expected when people support parties that happily serve us up as a branch plant economy. If FIRA hadn't been dismantled by Mulroney maybe more Cdn's wouldn't have to follow their head office to other countries.

Yammer,

Agreed

mabellbc

Your comments regarding GHG emmissions simply are not true. The US, with 5% or so of the world's population is responsible for 25% of the global GHG emissions. In Canada, on a per capita basis, we are worse than the US.

The issue here is leadership. By proving to the world that we can reduce our GHG emissions and still have a good quality of life, we can show the way for the rest of the world. Reallocating lanes of traffic on the Burrard Bridge would have been a great way to show leadership.

If everyone or even a half of the people in China or India own a car, we are all in big trouble. This is why we all must set an example by driving less. There is no other option.

Did somebody mention "a public trial?" I happened to see this item today on the Opinion 250 web-site. You remember Doug Walls, don't you?:

Walls Case In Court
The preliminary inquiry into the Doug Walls, Mike Millard case is underway.Â*Â*

There is a publication ban in effect for the proceedings in that Provincial Courtroom, so we are not able to tell you about information being presented to the Judge.

We can tell you the two are charged in connection with a cheque kiting scheme thatÂ*left the CIBC $1 million dollars in the hole.Â*

At the time, Doug Walls was one of the owners of the Fred Walls and Sons Ford dealership and Millard was theÂ* Chief Financial Officer.

I wonder how the media and current polls are affecting the voters.

My best guess is that the electorate does not mind a *minority* conservative government to clean up the mess left by the Libs but do not want a *majority* conservative government with all the excesses they imply. I like the idea of the NDP and Bloc keeping the Conservatives under watch while the Libs rebuild from the ground up before yet an other election 18 months down the road. And we definitely do need more Greens&independants in Ottawa.

Once again little elliot weighs in with the same old same old tired cliches. Here is his latest useless offering:

"desperate lefty blather."

Just to make sure he has no reason to come back to this post, here are more of his favourites:

"blather blather blather"

"boring boring boring"

"what a crock of shite"

"fight the man"

"get a life"

"blah blah blah"

"you're whacked"

"who cares?"

"who cares?"

The last one is the key here little elliot. You have no depth so no one cares. Go away and let thinking people debate issues, not useless blather.

Bobb999, don't apologize to me. I welcome it if the Conservatives actually are falling.

I also agree strongly with what you stated about the Globe's coverage and Gregg's overly positive spin on his own poll, a somewhat shallow pretence at disinterest.

I am increasingly getting concerned about the Globe's continually fawning praise of Harper.

Recent editorials, including a pair today leaves the impression Harper has already swept into power.

Sure, these latest editorials do urge Harper to revisit some of his extreme stuff, but are presented more like positive advice from a good friend rather than from someone who purports to have the public's wellbeing foremost in their mind.

Certainly a smiling Harper has been front page material more than any other individual in this race.

Why?

OK, I am putting a loonie on the Calgary Herald coming out for Saddam Hussein. That would be news.

allan, I like the line by Gregg that Bloc voters are open to being wooed by the Cons because 60% of them say they're unafraid of a Con gov't. A percentage higher even than in the west. Gee, did separatist Quebecois all suddenly go right-wing or could it be that they will vote separatist and hope that they deal with Harper?

Inquiring Greggs want to know.

Wallace, he's a veritable gold mine of intellect isn't he?

Clearly, the Globe has gone the way of the NYT.
You'd think they would have been careful considering the issue with his other poll, but no. This why I never buy the Globe. Our provincial election coverage did it for me.

Frank,

Checked out the link. We have 20, maybe 30 years of ice left. We have the ability to create O3 large scale. Considering that O3 is one to four inches in condensed liquid states in terms of gaseous atmospheric amounts globally, problem solved... partially. We have by no means looked at our true collective potential to right the wrongs and heal this planet. Not yet.

This much I know, and you'll have to go on a limb with this one to believe it, but when I consider "the source"... Human beings will still be around 2,000 years from now. It won't come from waiting for it to happen.

It'll come from our own direct participation in making a difference for the generations that suceed us. Even in failure, I can rest in my grave if it is to know that I tried. Remember this quote.

"Humanity will be on the dawn of knowing its own destiny, when we plant a shade tree under which we know full well, we shall never sit."

And perhaps even more chilling is the prospect that a Quebec vote for the Cons IS a vote for separation. Hope that one doesn't circulate to much down east.

Rafe, maybe part of the reason you will vote Green, is because you can live with the results of a Conservative gov't.

Correction: we have more ice than that, but a 20 to 30 year window is all we have left.

Gaulois wrote:

My best guess is that the electorate is not stupid: if a meaner harsher Calvinist Canada is the price that has to be paid for more opportunities to enjoy the distractions of a high consumption lifestyle -- then a meaner harsher Calvinist Canada is what we will have. We live in a world in which multi-millionaire jet-setter rock stars are taken seriously as anti-poverty activists while their privileged supporters make quaint archaic distinctions between the deserving and the undeserving poor. We have had decades of American cultural influence and arrogance which has made the ideals of social democracy appear dated and irrelevant to the lives of most apathetic Canadian consumers. The electorate knows exactly what Harper stands for -- and for the most part they couldn't care less so long as Harper's plans for the poor and other undesirables don't encroach on their winter vacations.

Thank you, Jack Layton, for working with Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to defeat the minority Liberal government so that the spectre of a majority Conservative government might become a real possibility. Now we can look forward to having our rights and freedoms stripped from us while your party engages in its usual ineffectual whining and posturing. I've heard about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but the irony of this is just staggering.

Redrivergirl:

Rafe has already voted, and his thoughts are simple. He can live with the idea of having the environment on our radar, more than living without it. Whether or not most people know it, the Green party is an environmental movement, regardless of what people think of Jim Harris or the present and future immediate Green successes or failures of the environmentalist candidates that make up the party itself.

As the environment worsens from global warming, the Green party will become more and more successful, regardless of its opponents. Social and economical changes come and go, but we only have one physical environment that is here to stay and keep records of humanities legacy of ignorance, greed and corruption.

We have to keep in mind that most, if not all Green candidates are environmentalists. This is highly unlikely to change in the future. Its too imbedded in their platform, and quite frankly, to deviate from this, would be to commit future political suicide for them.

Whether or not anyone wants to admit our need for much greater focus on our environments, the need for political action to protect and preserve our environments cannot be denied, except by those who want to profit off at the expense of our overall environments.

While I agree with you that the Cons are the greatest threat of all running parties to anything Green, I would disagree with you in not supporting an environmental party or voice now, as it is undeniably needed to educate the voters now in the future to come with what is likely the most important issue of all, as environments are multiplex and integrated within everything that supports life, be it physical, emotional, mental, ideological or spiritual.

Bluenose:
Your thoughts are accurately chilling. Jack Layton is choosing to profit off of the misery and failures created by a Conservative government, and this is something that smart voters will not soon forget.

As for the rest, you say it best. The low voter turnout of the poor, middle class and apathetic, combined with a high voter turnout by the rich and well off, suggests that we will all have a part in the failures of the federal government to come, should the Cons get a majority.

brain and Bluenose, I see it the other way around. Martin was PM, all he had to do was work with the NDP on health care. After all the NDP was propping them up, why shouldn't they ask for something? Especially as a lot of their potential voters voted Liberal last time?

I'm sure many Libs have wondered lately if Layton's price was so high after all.

What was Layton supposed to do? Prop up a Liberal gov't who wouldn't govern in a liberal and fair manner? The Libs promised not to further cut corporate taxes. They reneged. He chose not to co-sign their corporate lackey decision. I agree with Frank. It is the Libs who let the gov't fall. But, then so did the Cons and Bloc who could have joined with the NDP to get results from this gov't and chose not to do so.

Brain, thanks, I know all I need to know about the Greens to know I'll never vote for their party again. I did once. Before they became so Libertarian, and representative of corporate interests. The NDP are the best we have at this time in my view. To each their own. :-)

For Michael Clift:

I am not certain what is meant by tribalism.
If you mean the division of the land-mass of Canada into different, legally governed 'regions' or even certain 'march' areas; then yes I do think that this will happen, indeed in many ways it is happening right now.

Take the point that the BC tax department is pursuing COSTCO for thier shopping records so that BC residents that have shopped in Alberta stores (no sales tax) will be found and forced to pay 7% sales tax on the items so purchased. What is more revealing in this attempt is that they, the BC tax department, want the records dating back to 1998!

This all stems from the geographical FACT that the kootenays are nearer to the no sales tax Alberta stores (especially in winter when the passes are snowed in) than they are to BC shopping areas. Add to this the lure of saving 7% on all purchases and who wouldn't shop elsewhere? The BC government was considering (back in 2000) making the kootenays a tax-free 'march' zone where the provincial sales tax would not apply. Now they are reversing this as they realize that more and more tax revenues will be lost through 'region creep', because if they declare the kootenays tax-exempt, why not the northeast? or Queen Charlottes? or Vancouver Island?

By taking a pro-active approach, we here in BC could wrest the correct amount of debt/population NOW from the dying federal system, rather than waiting for PQ to leave and take none of their 300 year liabilities with them, leaving more debt for the remaining populace to have to serve. This is only point one.
Further, on a more global scale, smaller regions are more able to react quickly to changing circumstances. As the global econcomy has linked in different ways, it made Europe need to break down the trade barriers, as it was one land mass. Just as we have done here in North America.
Now the whole planet is moving in a similar direction; the problem is the Nation-States are resisting the move to lower trade barriers. As a smaller soverign state BC could 'buck' this trend and take direct action to lower barriers to trade. The important action following this is to increase education and R&D spending with the increased revenues - mining our intellect and keeping it here with the combination of our natural benefits (great water/air/etc) and a more beneficial tax system (one that recognizes talent, without punishing the masses). Were BC to take such an action as separation the natural argument becomes why not divide more? The correct answer is YES!

The free-port city of Vancouver could easily become the east-pacific equivalent to Hong Kong, the only missing ingredient is the vision to move in that direction and the will to see it through.

Other regions of the 'province' then would be free to take greater advantage of what assets they had to improve the overall local conditions. Moreover places like Haida Gwaii could finally wave goodbye to the colonial forces that continue to plague their lives and truly become something distinct.

(cont)

Some choose to use this media to spread a word with the desire to take personal gain from it. I do not.

The MSM does not care about this sort of information or view, since they, the MSM, are hooked into the 'value' coming from the dying institutions in southern Ontario. They, the MSM would never publish these views, I know as I have tried before to start the discussion and got no where.

I make no proposals for the CPC, LiEberals, NDP nor GPC as none of them can do anything about these issues since they are all connected to the notion that Canada must remain whole and continue to pay for the Ottawa bureaucrats.

I do miss the breath of fresh air that was the Reform Party though, sigh.

Rafe:

"Chris H doesn't understand why I voted Green.In neither English speaking debate was there a question on the environment. This critical issue goes untouched by those who would lead us."

I distinctly remember Kyoto coming up. Layton's point that the Liberals were breaking the agreement was well pointed. That isn't about the environment?

"I am not a member of the Green Party and don't even know the name of their candidate in my riding - at least in part because his/her name isn't on their lawn signs."

If the Greens cannot even get the message out who their candidates are, I have to wonder at their effectiveness in getting the environmentalist message out. Maybe you'd make more of a difference sending a few bucks to Sierra or Greenpeace.

"My options were these - vote for someone who, if elected, will merely be a cipher constantly doing as he is told or make a contribution to the well being of my community and country."

Wow, the Greens must be a super power on the federal scene. Oh wait ... they didn't even have the clout in getting in on the debates. To top it off, much of their platform is anything but progressive, but, what can you expect, the leader is an ex-conservative.

Rafe's explanation on why he voted Green doesn't inspire much. Maybe if he cared enough to know his candidate, studied their platform, and knew where they stood on the issues, I would get it. If I started a party called the Wild Salmon Party would Rafe shift his vote to my candidates? It seems all you need to do is identify with the voter and they will come crawling to you - no matter what yahoos you having running or where they actually stand on any given issue. I went to the debate for my MLA, and the provincial Green candidate was so unimpressive, I wouldn't want him taking care of my garden, let alone my tax dollars. Know your candidates - it's the only way we can responsibly pick who should represent us.

The Green Party isn't just about the environment, its about having a long term plan for sustainability around the globe. It may have its own contradictions, but it is pushing policy not promises. There is no tax givaways, no new feel good programs in the platform. Instead, it is using the jurisdiction and taxational abilities of the government to shape our behaviors in a way that will allow us to get more out of this planet.

I encourage every fiscal conservative who doesn't like the taste of social conservatism to put there vote where there future is.

Also check out the Van Center candidate: http://jared.vanalive.ca

Frank writes:

If our GNP had actually fallen I would agree with you but we are not poorer, we are richer.

Interesting thought, are we richer?

What is the measuring stick by which you are measuring our wealth? Is it the Canadian dollar? Which has lost value since its creation, probably more than 90% due to the artificial 'inflation' that all nation-state central banks have been using. If that is your measuring stick, then the illusion of more value is certainly there, but the reality is quite different. This is where the productivity argument comes from, our industrial model economy is still trying to use 100+ year old methods of regulation and control in the 21st Century.

I am less skilled at this explanation than Mr. Friedman in his book "The World Is Flat", I recommend it for further understanding of this issue.

Was cold calling for the Vancouver Centre NDP candidate tonight. If that counts as a marginal poll Svend Robinson looks to be the victor.

Frank writes:

I am not proposing any such thing as continuing to fight the Treaty of Westphalia, how silly.

If the 'nation-states' were doing so fine why has Argentina practically folded? Why did New Zeland get a 'do-over' from the world bank and now have a totally different scheme than they started with?
If there is so much popular 'glue' why is the attendance at polling for national elections dropping? Especially among the younger 18-35 demographic?

The Roman 'Empire' is now said to have ended in 476 AD, yet in 800 AD we still see kings such as Charlemange calling themselves 'emperor'. Indeed it was not until 1805 that the last 'Holy Roman Emperor' was deposed.

I mention these thoughts as I believe that the concepts of the 'nation-state' such as citizenship and taxpayer will linger-on, much as the mental attitude of the common folk in the Italian peninsula must have in 480 AD, in thinking that the 'empire' remains.

Frank writes:

The soviet-union was once such a large nation-state, with a centrally controlled economy and until 1989 was seen as one of two world 'super-powers'. Yet now what has been happening?

The 'soviet-bloc' nations are all breaking into smaller parts. Those parts are squabbling, the gas battle in Ukraine is only getting started. And land-locked locations with little or no natural geographic barriers will see thier past strenght fritter away as their ability to trade is cut off by their port capable neighbors.

Trading blocs yes, surrendering past soverign territory? or control over their populace?

NO.

This is a big point about the tottering welfare-states, they will not give up their tax-paying sheep for anyone else to shear. They battle and battle for them, not realizing that these sheep are learning how to fly.

Try reading THE SOVERIGN INDIVIDUAL for a better explanation of this effect.

Frank writes:

The Bloc Quebecois has always maintained a position of working towards a 'Soverign Quebec', while their actions may not always match the platform their aim has always been there. The actions, of late, are more about bartering a better deal, but that is life.

I very much doubt that the large cities on the Canadian prairies will be there, as they are cold and uncomfortable for a lot of the year. Unless there is an anchor of some sort of employment opportunity such large cities as Winnipeg (indeed outmigration is still a factor in Manitoba and Saskatchewan) or Regina is improved by a better 'mining of the inellect' for those people who live there and better tax support for them. Ultimately Winnipeg will loose support from the outlying areas as who in Brandon wants to pay for the snowploughs in Winnipeg? We see this action already with the resistance of the medical profession to live in the vast 'hinterlands' of any part of Canada.

Until we start having a frank discussion of these sort of thoughts and come to a better understanding, generally, of what 'money' is and how central banks policies of 'inflation' actually removes our personal buying power by essentially taxing us all at the savings account; we here in Canada will simply totter our way along until the rest of the world has passed us so completely that our efforts will go to enrich others and not our own decendants.

This just in!! Hedy Fry reports Tony Fogarassy is burning Svend Robinson in Prince George as we speak!!!

Redrivergirl wrote:

Absolutely. He ought to have acted skillfully and strategically rather than aggressively and opportunistically. He ought to have bided his time and secured his position -- for the good of Canada if not for his own self-interest.

No government ever governs in a fair manner. Governments are run by imperfect politicians who remain vulnerable to their own weaknesses. It is a matter of degree rather than of kind.

These shrill cries over corruption reflect a puritanical (and hypocritical) preoccupation with individualized, privatized ideas of right and wrong rather than justice and injustice. Cotton Mather would have been proud of both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper. I could not care less if Svend Robinson had stolen the Crown Jewels of England (I rather wish he had). I could not care less if the Liberal Government had laundered every cent in Ottawa. At least with the Liberals in office there was the opportunity to work towards the creation of enlightened society. There was some space to move forwards instead of having to engage the same battles over and over and over again.

There are some leftists who seem to prefer having Conservative governments to attack: it confirms them in their own importance. But what does it actually accomplish? Nothing. With whom do they actually connect? No one. They talk among themselves within a self-referential universe of utopian narratives.

I think what Layton did was colossally stupid but I hope it was his advisors who put him up to it rather than an idea that hatched in his own brain. This was an act of opportunism that will likely blow up in his face come election day. I can only hope that those leftists who aren't enslaved to the political ideology of the crack pipe start to infiltrate the Liberal party the way that evangelical Christians and other religious enthusiasts have successfully infiltrated the Conservative party. I think that the NDP will be a spent force after this election. Tragic.

Never, Redrivergirl? Frank? Do you both think the NDP will be perfect and without flaw when their time comes to rule? Where will you both turn next when governments and party ideologies are only as reliable as the people who belong to them? (Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadvent, I miss'em, God love'em) Will you run for government, or turn apathetic and refuse to vote...

Ah, politics.... these are issues that are buried in shades of gray and spots of black and white. On one hand, we want money to pay for social programs. On the other hand, we don't want to face up to how we are supposed to generate it. On the one hand, we ditz banks and capitalism. On the other hand, we embrace them when it comes time to take on a morgage or finance a car or loan.

We ditz and sometimes detest corporations. But it doesn't stop us from buying what they produce. On the one hand, we want to love human beings and all other life. On the other hand, we are at competition with life to survive. On one hand, we want to preserve and protect all life. (I can only hope) On the other hand, there are too many of us already and nature is waiting for its own cull beyond our need to consume life to live.

Take mining for example. On one hand, it is an ugly detriment to the localized environment and yet, our global environment could benefit tremendously, if mined safely and used properly. And our use of metals... so often such a waste. On the other hand, we would be screwed without metals to generate the big power and transporation we so love to plug into and get around in... but what's fuelling it?
Show me how we can stop the dependency of fossil fuels without the metals needed to generate clean power, and I'll show you how we can snub our noses at a capitalist economy without being labelled as hypocrites.

Show me how we can pay for social programs without the need to keep the majority of corporations profitable and I'll show you an economy with single taxation and the same set of problems. Who wants to pay?

As it is, Canadian corporate tax percentages are at 21%, well within the top ten most taxed countries of the world, and yet corporations are full of conflicts of interest throughout all of our institutions. Get rid of the conflicts of interest and drop the percentages a couple of points... to bad conflicts will continue on regardless of this ideology, good or bad. Its human nature.

Do you really think its corporations that are corrupt and morally bankrupt? Try the human beings that run them. Do you really think that its governments that are corrupt? Try the human beings that run them. Do you really think that the truth can be seen with the existence of double standards? Completely remove your own, if you haven't already, and you will see it for what it is.

Are the two of you trying to tell me that Jack Layton has never told a lie? Calling their own unproven allegations scandals, is treading past a dangerous line. Ignoring the most dangerous party of them all, with the most important issues of all without challange, with motive to profit off of Conservative failure at everyone else's expense, whether chosen by the public or not, is hardly a reason for being fit to rule, and not something that should be confused as being wise.

Question is, who is fit to rule? Its human beings that run them. Vote for colors? Try voting for individuals without the double standards. Within them, you'll find black or white, and the stark contrast to the color of what it is that you now oppose or embrace. And if such single standard individuals don't exist in your riding and you have single standards, then serve and run. Until then, lets see...

What's that corporation loving party called that is against clear cuts, for clean power, organic farming, disease prevention... oh, yes. Environmentalist fakes. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Say this, do that. Human beings of course. I think I'll take my chances just this once and vote for the environmentalist/Gr. teacher in my riding. I'm only human. ;-)

you're a very sad fellow wally-boy. must be horrible to have so much idle time on your hands. you'll feel much better about yourself if you find something useful to do.
btw; come monday none of this tyee blather will matter. harper may have a majority, and he won't need to pay any attention whatsoever to the moronic ndp ideologues who are indebted to unions and special interest groups. can't come too soon. canadians have been fooled by the libs for far too long.

Bluenose,

You write eloquently. I like the music, but suggest it need not be a dirge.

The Conservatives may or may not represent a setback from the ideals of the enlightenment which you so passionately mourn. That would depend, I guess, on your view of the effectiveness of Liberals at achieving that goal.

If Conservatives have a common ideological goal, it would not be in any specific policy but the benefit of society, which is to say, themselves.

I believe that they will accept proposals which are of benefit to the lower classes, say, as long as there is a clear benefit to the ownership caste. A happy populace, after all, is fit to work and eager to purchase.

In sum, the task of the left, in addition to infiltrating all political parties (why stop at the Liberals?), is to learn to present a business case for its policies. Want, uh, universal child care? All right, sell it. I phrase crassly, but would suggest that any idea worth fomenting through the cumbersome and incredibly wasteful apparatus of government really ought to be able to pass this kind of test.

As for opposing the policies of the right -- if indeed there are common agendas, we all know what we fear they might be -- the masters of industry will not permit them to be enforced if they can be shown to be harmful to their self-interest.

Finally, you can not possibly be serious about the irrelevance of corruption in this or any election. It's like ignoring the drunken surgeon or the oblivious judge. I'm also unmoved by sheer shrillness of condemnation; I'm wondering, where are the goddamn horsewhips? How dare the Liberals subvert and accumulate government money in that fashion? For that matter, how dare Svend run again?

Our leaders are our employees. They stole, so we are going to fire them.

Now -- Prime Minister Harper, that's not got a very nice sound to it. But don't worry for a second that he means the end of your goals. No one has that much power, let alone a Western politician who by definition is a creature of the polls. The polls are the people, and the people are usually right -- eventually.

murdock,

I knew you'd take this tack which is why I qualified my own by saying that yes measurement is a problem.

However, I figure it doesn't matter because its a closed loop. Forget the externals, forget the real value of a dollar etc. What counts is our programs can be paid in Cdn dollars and we seem to have more of them than at any previous time so they should be affordable.

I'm not going to argue with you on 'true value'
or 'are we really richer' because I agree with many of the points you would inevitably make already.

If there is so much popular 'glue' why is the attendance at polling for national elections dropping?

I mention these thoughts as I believe that the concepts of the 'nation-state' such as citizenship and taxpayer will linger-on

The soviet-union was once such a large nation-state, with a centrally controlled economy and until 1989 was seen as one of two world 'super-powers'. Yet now what has been happening?

Not all nations are doing tickety-boo economically and voter turnout is falling but I don't see it as being a national crisis in terms of identity. People all across the spectrum still wrap themselves in the flag, they still look for solutions from national leaders, they still identify with the trappings of nationalism. Even in places like NZ and Argentina. Of course you add the Soviets but that's the breakup of an empire that was formed in spite of nationalist pressures. I think its a one-time thing and you shouldn't draw lessons from it that would lead you to believe its a historic process that will be repeated elsewhere.

Same with Argentina and NZ, there will always be crises in one country or another. But I don't think its a lack of national glue. Its just losing a war or making adjustments in the economy. Even Louis XIV had his economic problems and he was the Sun King.

One problem of course with is that although people are free to flee the state there is no longer any place for them to go except to another state. Everything is owned by someone.

Okay, sure the Bloc qualifies. But some would say Quebec is a nation within another nation-state and that its separation may or may not be inevitable but it doesn't mean that the same process will occur elsewhere.

But who is leading the way to whatever? Who is Canada behind?

Frank, Redrivergirl:
I use the word "we" figuratively...

Bluenose:
I disagree. I wish I had as much faith in the intellect of voters as you. I don't have such faith. We voted Mulroney in twice. We voted Grant Devine in twice. Gordon Campbell... Mike Harris... Jacque Pariseau, and his hatred for the "ethnic groups" that kept him from being the founding hero of his new nation...

As for the NDP being a spent force, they really will benefit from their own politics, as all politicians do, at first, until they run out of excuses. After the Cons blow it, who will voters trust? Do voters have long memories? And the NDP too, will find their way to violate this public trust. Presently, its with inaction. Later, it will be actions, without excuse. Until we vote without colors, and get past our own double standards... we won't evolve into the country that we should have already become.

The sad truth is, assuming the polls are accurate which I shouldn't do, we, in general, out of voting Cons in as a bye for Liberal failures, combined with poor voter turnout, deserve everything we've got coming... as a whole. Its too bad there will be victims. Minorities, children, pensioners, future generations...

brain and bluenose, well mainly bluenose but whatever...

Why did you include my name? I never said never.

I kind of see us at that point already brain.

No.. I'm sure he's told a kazillion of them. But how does this all relate to the NDP supporting or not supporting the Libs?

If you want to vote green, hey go ahead, why not?

Except that many people, including many NDP'ers, would care about Liberal laundering. And if the Libs refused to work with the NDP then its a pretty big assumption that they would work towards the creation of an enlightened society. Because if they actually were I think Layton would have supported them. Unless of course "enlightened" means corporate tax cuts and debt paydown.

A rose by any other name... A Liberal gov't that acts conservative is no different to me.

My only point is that the NDP was in a tough spot. Layton wanted to prop up the Libs in return for movement on the health care portfolio. But at the same time I'm sure there were many whispering in his ear that if he was seen as the one propping up a gov't that the people wanted to punish he would be punished right along with them.

I think he made the right move. Say this is my price because I believe I can hold this up to the Cdn people and say this is why we did it. Without that agreement he's got nothing and you'd have to be starkers to prop up an unpopular gov't for nothing.

Frankly, it amazes me that anyone can still believe that a corrupt group of unprincipled individuals, who are only unified in their lust for power, without any committment to a consistent, logical policy direction of any kind, except what the polls tell them is currently popular, are the epitome of "progressive" politics, and therefore deserving of support. The only times that the Liberal Party has done anything progressive is when they have been dragged kicking and screaming into doing the proper thing, either by massive public outcry, the pressure of the NDP in minority governments, or decisions of the Supreme Court. The sooner that this stinking corpse of opportunism is cleansed from Ottawa, and the political system redefined as a debate between principled parties with consistent belief systems, such as we have enjoyed in three quarters of Western Canada for several decades, the better off this country will be. Vote Conservative if you love business tax cuts and traditional social values, vote NDP if you love social tolerance and publicly owned and operated infrastructure and social programs. Vote Green or Sex or whatever if you do not prefer either option. [B]Do not vote Liberal until they have atoned for their sins of the last 13 years.

The Green Party fiscally conservative? Have you read their platform? They have over 200 promises, and there isn't much there that wouldn't cost money. Read it yourself:

http://dev.greenparty.ca/download/GPC_Platform_2006.pdf

Thats BS Chris, tell us what in the Green Party platform will cost either as much as the multi-billion tax cuts that Harper is offering, or the billions of dollars in regional handouts that MArtin and LAyton are offering. 80% of the platfor is based on tax shifting or on enforcing environmental regulations.

These are the biggest spending promise:
65. Work with provinces and municipalities to make a massive re-investment in Canada's public transportation infrastructure.
84. Develop tax incentives for companies to meet the highest standards of gender and pay equity.
85. Increase funding for women's crisis centres and shelters, as well as educational programs that build healthy attitudes toward women by working with provincial and municipal governments.
109. Increase support for community arts programs and facilities across Canada by establishing stable base-funding at a set percentage of the federal budget.
110. Establish stable base-funding for young artists.
123. Include coverage for effective health care treatments such as chiropractic, acupuncture or herbal medicines.
170. Increase investments in post-secondary education and ensure that public funding plays a major role in research and development initiatives.

Althoug I too do encourage everyone to read it themselves.

Also. much of it is about properlyfunding communities and local organizations rather than starting huge new bureacratic programs.

It is great to see so many really looking deep into the issues that affect you. Take pride in knowing your vote will never be wrong what ever we end up with in Government we will deal with for the allotted time and then become the jury for them. I am voting NDP because I still believe in social programs hopefully they will come back to the level where they actually help. I would like to see education as a right and not a privilage as it is quickly becoming with the rising costs, and free health care with everyone having equal opportunities for care...I believe the NDP will get there eventually.

Brain: if you have one (to quote Ed Deak), ask yourself where you get off explaining to us all, the importance of The Environment. Of all the cross-eyed arrogance!

From the assumption that nobody but you has ever heard of The Environment, you then leap to the preposterous notion that the Green Party is all about The Environment. Them. Only them. Ijit.

The Greenies are fakes, running a fund-raising campaign.

jackrusell -

Your free Health Care cost me about $1200 per month, how much does it cost you?

Oh no, it doesn't. lol

Your 1200 a month is going to your governmental priorities and as well it is going to pay back the investment this country has given you from cradle onwards. Even if you come from a family that is among the upper income percentile if you're over ten.

And, when you start calculating don't forget to back 200 years with compound interest. Our benefits arise from the work of others and the capital we all invested, both in money, volunteerism, philanthropy and labour.

Sorry RRG, the share of my taxes that go towards Health Care is about $1200 per month. The governments take lots of other dollars from me for their other pet projects.

including, not both...

What 200 years? We had balanced budgets in this counrty up unitl the mid 70's?

I addressed that in the post afterwards, but let me tell you from experience...In Ca a family of four pays about 1400 a month for comparable coverage and that doesn't include deductibles, copays and the hassle of fighting for services with your HMO. More if you want to choose your own physician and they're not on the HMO list.

We also used to have a fairer tax system where corporations paid their fare share of tax.

The 200 years that the pioneers, and those who came after them contributed to our assets bringing their capital(labour, money, volunteerism, philanthropy) which continued building. And, of course the 5,000 years of resources that were the First Nations capital. But, for sake of argument, 200 years.

It's imortant to make a full inventory.

I have to run for now.

Gawd Chuck - who do you think ends up paying the tab when corporations pay taxes? Sheesh.....

Yammer wrote:

I do not expect the Liberals to achieve those goals but I do expect a Liberal Government to provide more space for others to work towards the achievement of those goals. Far more space than a Conservative majority government would ever open up.

Agreed. And Fabius Cunctator would agree too.

I think this is an inappropriate analogy that conflates political corruption in general with particular instances of incompetence. I think all politicians are inherently corrupt: and the ones who present themselves as the most morally or doctrinally pure are apt to be the most corrupt. I just expect that along with the inevitable corruption there will also be a few token gestures of social concern and a few frail attempts at public service without the imposition of a hypocritical, conservative, moralistic ideology at every level of society.

I think this too is an inappropriate analogy. I do not myself employ any of the political leaders of Canada: I cast my vote for them in a general election so that they may represent my interests in government. But I do not even directly appoint them let alone employ them. And if I were their employer I would expect them to be corrupt and I would look at other measures to ensure accountability rather than an immediate rush to judgement. I would not point the finger and I would not shame and blame. I think there are far bigger issues at stake.

Brain wrote:

I believe the electorate in general is quite intelligent and also extremely self-interested and relatively indifferent to the plight of the poor and marginalized in our society. It is basic human nature: weak and self-centered at its core. All successful politicians appeal to this one way or another. Politicans who have no interest in holding and weilding political power have no business being in politics. Mr. Layton, you are assigned the strategies of Fabius and the judgements of Machiavelli.

Through our own selfishness and arrogance, most of us do. The truly vulnerable in our society don't.

Frank wrote:

I would not expect any political party to work towards the creation of a truly enlightened society: that would be a total contradiction in terms. I would expect a political party to at least provide the attitudinal space for others to work towards the creation of such a society. I would expect them to at least make an attempt to get out of the way. I do not have such an expectation of the Conservatives.

I think this is disingenuous and conflates a fiscally conservative disposition in general (the Liberals) with an actively conservative agenda in areas of social policy and fiscal management (the Conservatives). Yes in many respects there are no differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives but in other respects the differences are crucial if not immediately apparent: but the devil is in the details. I don't believe a word Harper says: he has a constituency to please.

I do not believe the Liberal government was as unpopular then as it has since become largely through the manipulations of the mainstream media and the shameless boosterism of their cronies. I think Layton could have achieved more if he had been more subtle in approach and a little more patient. I think the federal NDP lost its last best chance to influence public policy in this country with the fall of the Liberal minority government.

BC Mary, you noted yesterday that Doug Wall's preliminary hearing is underway.

Do you happen to know where. You are correct the media can't report on the prelim., but that doesn't stop anyone, you, I or the media from sitting in on the hearing.

Armed with the details, a good Tyee reader might be able to shed some more light on the charges without getting into actual details.

It would be a shame if following the prelim., Wall quietly cut a guilty plea deal and then the public never gets a chance to even have a peak at what Gordon Campbell's in-law was up to with all those taxpayer dollars.

old news allan. along with basi and virk and the maui charges. nobody cares anymore. you'll have to scrounge around for some new scandals. good luck. see you in 2009.

BC Mary: It's again unfortunate that you insist on using personal insults to prove your own opinions.

To restate my own opinion, our bar none number one granddaddy long (and some would argue short) term issue of them all, at least, according to those without brains is the environment. Lets see:

The Cons are clear on kyoto or supporting anything else that corporations like and dislike.

The Libs are good at stating their will to be environmental, as is their will to ignore it.
(Although, I must admit, I liked the French guy who held the environmental position Martins cabinet during his brief chance for change)

The NDP environmental platform... just what is that platform? I haven't heard much from them in this area, other than support for kyoto, 5% bio fuel that every party joined the bandwagon on when the Libs announced it, a focus on more healthcare service professionals and an axe to hydrogenated fats. In contrasting it with a Green platform (without the people attached to it on both sides, et. el. the platforms by themselves), I was hoping for a great deal more.

As for the Greens, apparently you've got it all figured out. What do I know according to yourself and old, dated Ed Deak quotes is...

You will need more than slurs to convince the vast majority of environmentalists running for the Greens along with their supporters that they're a bunch of fakes. And yes, you can call me arrogant to raise awareness to the issue. If you think it will help...

Don't worry Elliot. There are and will be more scandals. (not that those ones are over) In fact what about the delayed announcement over the olympic budget over-runs we heard about? You know the ones they say they're holding off on in case it interferes with the election?

basi and virk, I heard that the reason it has taken Crown Prosecutors so long to bring this to court is because they don't have much of a case.
I always thought it was a flaky thing for the NDP Police Chief to raid the Leg , making such a media circus of it.
This was the same guy who called the hobo campsite on the Leg lawn, Camp Campbell.
Seems a bit strange to me.

the lefties are getting more desperate ron. just wait till 2013.

There won't be any lefties left by 2013.
It's a dying philosophy.

maybe we could make commercial drive a lefty museum for the tourists.

If "The Left" is a dying philosophy, than why are there so many here that disagree with you two? You constantly complain that these posts are full of lefties (a sign, I presume, that many people ascribe to most of the objectives of the Left), than turn around and proclaim that the Left is a dying philosophy. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Oh, I forgot, I'm reading something from Ron Erwin; someone who practically never makes any sense.

Dangrice:

That is the best advice. Let everyone read it themselves and make their own judgement. I do think you missed a few costly beauties in their platform however. If we shut down the forestry and mining industries, like their policies seem to aim to, you can bet that there will be a large cost to the economy. If the government isn't going to take in as much revenue due to policy, that has implications for government programs that will be available in the future.

The Green Party can make all the motherhood motions and policy it wants since they are a fringe party, without any hope of forming government, and very unlikely to win even a single seat. They will not have to keep any of their promises. I think anyone who truly believes in their platform should vote for them, but I would hope that people would take who they vote for seriously, learn about their candidates, and inform themselves as much as possible. Again, some of the Green candidates I have encountered simply were not up to the job in my opinion.

Crass - The Tyee is one of the last covenants of lefties in the Western World. Ron is bang on. Ordinary Canadians have grown weary of the elitest social engineering, conspiracy theories and class warfare from the left. All we want is rational, responsible government....

NoLeftNutter, if by "Western World" you mean the US, sure. Although even there the split between red and blue is growing and becoming more heated and generating more energy on the left.

In the Cdn context your view is blarney. I assume its based on the 37% support for the Cons party? When we see the Liberals campaign from the right, not the left, we can then safely assume the left is hurting. But as long as Harper moves to the left and Martin talks like Che to get elected we can still safely assume that Cdns for the most part are not as right-wing as their politicos.

The reason the Basi, Virk thing has taken so long to come to trial is that one of the defendants changed their lawyer - twice. This is a nice and easy way to delay the process.

Much more likely that by 2013 the dinosaurs who support the neoconservative agenda will be extinct. Eventually people will begin to understand that we all share a common humanity.

Like Rafe, I was going to vote Green to show my support for the environment. Then, yesterday, I finally saw my local "Green" candidate (Doug Perry) at an all-candidates' meeting. He showed no interest in the environment, and the things he was interested in (e.g. Canadian soldiers in Haiti) and what he would do about them were identical to the priorities and proposals of the Marxist-Leninist candidate. I have no idea how typical he is of Green candidates.

The moral of the story is, learn whom you're voting for - the reality doesn't always match the label.

As an aside, I completely agree with MabelBC's assessment of the Kyoto accord. More significantly, she's agreeing with James Lovelock, who has written that it's analogous to the Munich agreement. Of course, the conclusions she draws from that assessment and my conclusions are completely different things, but that's a whole other story.

Michael C:

Excellent points. There are some true duds in the Green Party. This is true, however, with all parties. There are real gem's and real losers in all of them. With me, passay doesn't cut it, and I find it hard to be confident with anyone who runs under Harpers leadership. So, it is better to be colorblind than to vote for colors, with a keen eye on who the leaders are and what their platforms stand for.

With the Green party platforms, there are some true examples of unsustainable ideas. But, as you say, they can be ideological as much as they want for now, because there is no risk of them assuming power.

The thing is, the Greens, overall, do have something very important ideologies to contribute and if they get any seats at all, some of these ideologies (not all, but most) are needed in a huge way. Disease prevention and stronger Food and Drug regulations are excellent starting points, beyond the energy paradigm shift to clean power.

Lovelock says its all over but the shouting. That the world can no longer be saved and the last of us will be hanging out in the acrtic by the end of the century.

since the birth of the reform party all we have heard from bc and alberta is "the west wants in." well here we have a chance to put the west in and it appears that bc will be voting ndp, liberal and conservative. go figure. no wonder the east looks to west and scratches their head.

Great points by Michael C and The brain. Since it seems all political parties leave something to be desired, I think everyone should get to know their local candidates and vote accordingly.

Kayakrick, hey buddy, it sounds like you were listening to a few former Alberta welfare clients who were sent packing by Ralph Klein.

The majority of us in BC have no plans to vote for those yahoos.

Believe me, its Alberta and people like you easterners are scratching their heads over.

murdock: The book "The Sovereign Individual" comes from one of the stable of "pundits' in the Daily Reckoning. They make money by telling people what they want to hear, and it doesn't matter what your economic viewpoint is, they have someone to stroke you with confirmation of your own genius. Oh, yeah, and the author, Lees-Mogg, was involved in some rather serious financial fraud not to long ago... don't remember exactly what, but I laughed like heck when it happened....

NoLeftNutter: We've had several hundred years in Canada of waiting for the right to give us rational, responsible government. Thousands in the rest of the world. We have, in that time, gotten nothing but stupidity, corruption, tyranny, favoritism, and lining of pockets. How much longer do we have to wait? How many more chances do they deserve?

As I have posted before, if any of you have trouble with "lefty" solutions, then you should have the courage of your convictions and eschew all forms of government assistance, from socialized medicine to pensions. None of you ever do. That makes you liars and hypocrits, and please, spare me the "I've paid for it, so I at least should be able to use it..." No you didn't. Your contribution wouldn't have begun to defer the costs, and that goes in spades for medicare and pensions. Since to spend a dollar in your retirement, you would have to save an actual dollar adjusted for real inflation, that would mean saving about forty percent of your gross income each year to cover an expected 15 years of retirement assuming no change in your standard of living, without considering medical bills. You'd be reduced to hoping to find an unclaimed bridge to live under.

Never fear, when times get tough (something I expect in the not so distant future, seeing that the creation of M3 in the U.S. is running over 27% per annum in the last few weeks - 17% per annum in the last three months, nice acceleration, eh? - and if that doesn't get the wind up you all, I don't know what will), all the "free enterprisers" and "sovereign individuals" will come crying for not just more lefty solutions but special treatment.

R. Smiley

Thanks ripponfalls.
Amen