Gee...I don't know Bill.
I just saw the latest Jan. 15 Decima poll and it shockingly shows the Liberals out in front in Ontario again. They took 9% from the NDP in just a few days to get to 39% support while the Conservatives have 36% support and the NDP plunged 9% to 18% in Ontario. It looks like the phenomenon of STRATEGIC VOTING is occuring again with soft NDP voters defecting to Martin's inept Liberal's to head off a Conservative government. I can't believe that the NDP support in Ontario is so weak! I also saw a new poll by Strategic Council on CTVNEWS.COM and it shows the CPC decisively out in front in Eastern and SouthWestern Ontario but, in the Greater Toronto Area, the Liberals have regained the lead at 42% versus 35% for the Conservatives.

I don't understand METRO TORONTO. They're like a One Party Liberal State--even the NDP will be lucky to get more than 2 or 3 ridings here and the Conservatives zero. In contrast, all the other major Canadian cities (except Calgary) like Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax, Windsor and Halifax split their seats among the Liberals, NDP and/or Conservatives. Martin may pull off another rabbit from the hat, yet again in the last week of the campaign!

I can and it's very simple; the NDP has become a party beholden to special interest groups. Most of these groups has become almost fanatical in the support of their own causes. So fanatical, in fact, that they have driven the ordinary voter away. In trying to please everyone, they please no one.

In truth, I wish this wasn't so - but it is and until the NDP change and get with it. they will always finish a very weak third.

I used to vote NDP, but now I can't and will be voting Green. The BC NDP mirrors the feds, they got to change, they must change!

So True Bill.

I was at UBC, and I remember having friends in the young Liberals who misteriously came across money to get us Liberal MEmberships if we wanted with the promise of free beer if we stormed the AGM. OF course the other side countered by pulling memberships and voting off some of the execs.

Machiavelli describes it all.

A slick cadre of operatives, no doubt about it.

I think Tieleman is only showing half the story on the Dhaliwal shennanigan, although I still don't agree with how it was done. Kinsella should talk - he was one mean operative himself.

It's unfortunate that it takes a scandal to bring to light these kinds of interconnected networks. Unfortunately, it's in these kinds of under-the-table 'velvet mafia' associations that the real decision-making often takes place. They are the true catalyzing agent in politics. The clean-cut view of the political mechanism we gleaned from Poli Sci 101 doesn't even hint at the influence these kinds of invisible powerhouses bring to bear.

Here is another article from author. He relates to why we should vote NDP in BC

By BILL TIELEMAN

Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.

- John Kenneth Galbraith

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper said today" - okay, everyone, take a valium!

The Conservative Party has already won this federal election, unless Paul Martin makes the greatest comeback since Lazarus left his tomb.

Given the inept campaign of this tired and scandalous Liberal regime, that's not bloody likely.

So the question for voters worried about a Harper-led government full of regressive conservatives is how to stop a Tory majority.

The answer in B.C. is simple - and you don't have to choose between the disastrous or the unpalatable. Just elect enough New Democrat MPs to keep the Conservatives from running wild.

In key ridings the NDP is well positioned to defeat Conservatives and ensure that Harper is left with a minority government dependent on compromise to survive.

With the Liberals going down to sure defeat that leaves Jack Layton and the NDP as the last, best defense and B.C. as the province that may decide the size of a Conservative government.

The NDP now has five B.C. MPs, including Libby Davies, Bill Siksay and Peter Julian in the Lower Mainland, and could easily double that number with a small increase in support.

Former NDP MP Ian Waddell has an excellent chance of defeating Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson in Vancouver-Kingsway, where the margin was just 1,351 votes in 2004.

In New Westminster-Coquitlam, former NDP MP Dawn Black should beat controversial Conservative MP Paul Forseth, who has embarrassed the riding with appeals for "Christian" support and previously won by only 113 votes.

In Surrey North popular former city councilor Penny Priddy is favoured to replace Chuck Cadman, the late and well-loved MP who won as an independent after being dumped by the Conservatives in 2004. Priddy has the endorsement of Dona Cadman, Chuck's wife.

Newton-North Delta, the riding where tape recording Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal was forced to retire, NDP candidate Nancy Clegg could win with just 1,500 votes more than in 2004. And the NDP's Barry Bell might defeat Grewal's wife Nina in nearby Fleetwood-Port Kells.

If Vancouver-Centre voters want an MP with a 25-year record of standing up for constituents, they can dump discredited Liberal MP Hedy Fry and get Svend Robinson back into Parliament to shake it up and make things interesting.

And there are many other ridings across B.C. where the sagging Liberal vote means New Democrats are the best bet of stopping the Tories.

Canada will survive a Conservative win on Jan. 23 but it will be a lot better place if there are enough New Democrats in Parliament to hold the balance of power in a minority government and fight for progressive values.

Hear Bill Tieleman on election night Jan. 23 on CKNW Radio AM980 or online at cknw.com Email Tieleman at:

Geez - Couldn't you have just linked it, rather than posting the whole damn article?

COULD SOMEONE OUT THERE HELP ME!!! Well written article. How is it that with all of this info out there, no one and I mean no one can do the obvious. I can understand certain "reporters" asking a question and then editing the evasive answer for the 6 second sound bite. What I can't fathom is that the evasive answer always begs a better question. We are fast becoming as bad as our southern neighbours in accepting talking heads that all graduated from Dumb Question U. Whatever happened to consistent follow-up, relevant questions, questioning a non response? Is it our fault collectively for allowing it to happen or are we really being masterfully manipulated?

Every article he writes is designed to get you to vote NDP. When's the next one coming to discredit the Greens I wonder?
I sincerely hope that young people looking at how politics play out in the real world (neatly detailed in the piece) will abandon all hope and let this democracy deteriorate until the country is in a deep deep crisis.
Maybe then people, in retrospect, will value the tools they had to make a better society. But alas, it will be too late...

Not to be too bleak, I must admit I really came to like Jack Layton on the Q&A with "Pastor Pete" Mansbridge last night! A surprise, really, but one that keeps a flicker of hope alive that someone actually believes something.

Geez, Bill. Your headline and Martin Pic makes it look as though Paul Martin did it all himself!

David Anderson doesn't get a job in cabinet... Warren Kinsella, Chretien advisor doesn't have much nice to say about Martin... small wonders. What's new?

Lets just get to it, shall we? The real reason why Martin is media predicted to lose an election, is because the Chretien government had some dogs with flea's. Who was the PM at the time of Ad scam? And why again did Chretien step down and retire? And who was the most logical replacement?

Nice of you to add some color on the individuals fighting for the crumbs though, but lets face it. These names you dropped are all names of people who committed political suicide some time ago. Everyone, of course, but... Paul Martin.

Paul Martin blew it when he decided to take the baggage left behind as leader of a disgraced party.

And the beer bribes and corrupt one timers of the libs out here in BC... are we supposed to think for a minute that the CONS won't woop it up during their own party rants and recruit missions? They don't exactly ferret them out with fine tooth combs.

Your whole article reminds me of something I read in the Globe and Mail close to a year ago. And your blogger website info... I guess you're likely to start quoting us as factual now, ey, Bill?

Good luck with the NDP in your riding, Bill. And if your voting for the Cons, check out Harpers latest lie, the biggest one of the election.

"A Tory majority wouldn't wield power unfettered because of the Liberal-dominated Senate, and a civil service and judiciary that have been put in place by the Liberals."

Most bills can be stalled for a max of 2 years, as a rule. It's a blatant lie with anyone who remotely knows anything about Canadian politics. Maybe Harper should put a muzzle on himself.

The Liberal party is a loose collection of scandals traveling in the same general direction.

Yawn. Lets now heartily predict the kinds of scandals the Reformatories will be caught in. Are they a common graft party? A Mercedes and booze smuggling, DWI car wreck party (Oops! Cancel that one!)? or a "knickers round the neck sexual perversion" type of party? Place yer bets folks!

hunter - I actually thought that Peter Mansbridge gave Jack Layton a hard time on some tactical issues last night. He wouldn't let go. His frustration (Mansbridge's) that the NDP was stealing wind from the Liberals' sails was palpable. It was funny, because he looked more stressed-out and under-the-gun than Layton did.

nightbloom- I think that is part of the problem as I see it. It is so easy to go after or kick at the distant third place leader. I want to see the not letting go when it involves the number one, and I want it to be consistent. I'm of the opinion that all so called op-ed writers, talking heads et al have been told outright or otherwise that if they probe too hard, too deep or at the wrong time that that will be the last interview they get. How sad.

Jan 18/06

Whether or not the following prediction proves to be true is unknown
...but this is my best prediction at this date of the outcome of the
national election....not quite a majority for the Conservatives.

60- Bloc
22 -NDP
74 - Liberals
152- Conservatives

Total Seats: 308
If this proves to be correct on Election Day...this implies that only
if all three non-Conservative ally themselves - thereby casting 156
seats will they be able to defeat the Conservatives in a vote of
confidence. Indeed may we live in interesting times. So we shall see!

As for the Liberals, indeed as this article suggest they will be mired in their own 'crap' for quite some time - yet they may end up, even with defeat being the Official Opposition. Who will replace PM---who are the contenders- any ideas?

Skip, my money's more on the "Yelling at homeless people waiting in a food lineup" type of party. Or perhaps DUI while on holiday with an extra-marital girlfriend. Or perhaps nothing more than gay-bashing, mocking of women who don't know their place (did everyone forget the initial reaction to Belinda's defection?).

The vocal anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage contingents will butt heads with whoever's giving Harper decent election advice. Harper will give them the boot one-by-one to distance the party from their extremist views, forgetting, of course, that those are HIS views too, not to mention his core supporters.

So in a couple of years, we'll get to choose between a party with a severe corruption hangover and one with eyes swollen shut from in-fighting.

Oh how I love Canadian politics.

hunter - I agree 100%. It's a pattern we've been seeing thoughout the Liberal mandates, and its very tiresome.

The consolation is that Layton's performance was more relaxed and spontaneous-looking than I've seen him yet.

I think when/if Harper becomes P.M., he'll certainly have a hostile press to deal with. Remember what Mulroney had to put up with. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, but the press did let him get away with anything (contrary to their subsequent 12-year 'honeymood' with the Liberals).

...I meant to type 12-year 'honeymoon'.

Peter - a rapid succession of minorities over the next few years might be a good thing.

It'll help iron out the disarray in our party system as a result of the post-Mulroney disintegration of the national centre-Right.

Bill Tieleman, there's an awful lot of information between the lines of your report. Do you think British Columbia will hear the whole story when Basi & Virk & Basi come to trial on 24 April?

Then what?

I am scared of Harper and his kooks hanging in the wings but I feel this whole poll reporting is just crap. No real debate whatsoever. even the simplest of concepts are not being talked about. Try this one on for size,

The 1200 dollar a year childcare is a TAXABLE BENEFIT , that means you get taxed on it based on your income level. Someone who earns between 23-38K per year will get around 450 bucks, someone earning 100 k plus will
get 1000 bucks, this is the conservative agenda, just like anyone with half a brain in BC knows who our tax cut by Gordo benefited. What the F**ck is the media doing giving Harper a free ride. What a joke

Try this one of for size, we all love to crap on Martin over the notwithstanding clause and call him crazy etc but we forget only last Nov we had Vic Toews conservative justice critic in the US making bold statement to a US Christian group regarding gay marriage and abortion. I say Paul Martin does not deserve to win but the coverage is just awful and insulting .

Even CBC is not becoming lap dogs, last nights 6 pm news had them proving that Harper's policy is about 25 billion short , but they were quick to make comments on how much government is growing and that the conservatives would "squeeze that" can anyone define squeeze that, the general purpose of the
report was to make the impression that YES, the conservatives cannot not afford their platform but hey they will find savings in gov, we don't really know how or what but they will.

The MSM is trying to whip everyone into a frenzy and quick to discredit any critical comments for Harper , Their quick to ignore basic facts , for example the NDP is now at 20% and growing, remember that that poll does not include Quebec where their weak, let the conservatives take office, we will see a massive shift 18 months to 3 yrs from now, Canada is going left, many immigrant communities are now switching to the
NDP

sorry for the typos, in a rush today

I would certainly hope so! It would hardly be a political party otherwise, now would it?

The important point is that it is a *loose* collection of scandals travelling in a general direction rather than a *tight* collection of scoundrels travelling in a specific direction.

Stuart
Most of the immigrants I have met are more centre to right. Actually I think the biggest change that a significant immigrant population will have is on FN treaty negotiations. Do you think that a Indian born politician with a support base made up of immigrated voters will have any interests in pushing through treaty issues that could cost millions? I suspect we will start to see this shift in about 10 years.

I was at the all candidates meeting in N. Van last night the NDP candidate had to be taken away in a ambulance complaining of chest pains, I certain hope she is alright and it was a shame she could not be part of the debate.

A little late, but a little early. It is late to haul out the below stairs servant gossip on how the current master got in and all that stuff. It is early to presume.....what the polls are saying.
Yes the Polls. At my house I have given up ansering the phone between 4 and 7 on weekdays , 5 and 7 on Saturdays. . This is because it is almost always it is a "solicitation", and it does not help that among the theives who have stolen my telephone service access for that period, are political parties and pollsters. So what is the resonse rate. I have read some stories (in marketing) that 80000 calls were made to get under 2000 responses, and so on. If the rate is substantially affected by this, I mean if lots of people are like me and either tell the caller to shove off or do not answer the phone, then do not tell me about 19 times out of twenty.
Then there is the set up. These pollsters are in the business of doing market research to help a flirm find ways to move product, and some do not even advertise political polls. Several have web pages where it sounds like they are proud to offer rapid response to client requests from a pre-selected panel of 8 to 10000 on the net, who are motivated to respond, and the panel is frequently culled of non responders. What? That's random? Do the motivate with money, favors, hockey tickets?
This sounds like a set of people who are paid in some way to be available and answer. Maybe that sells soap, but I thnink it punches a big hole in the idea of random.
There there is "commodities" and whether we are being trained by decades of ads followed by "surveys" to be good little consumers.
In other words, there is the question of whether the polls have any credibilty, and whether we are hearing too much of this activity of private firms in search of a buck: and the even more provocative question of whether the pollsters are stealing our politics.
The answers to both these questions are much more important than whether anybody ever took advantage of Chretien and all that crap.

The reason for the demise of the NDP federaly is because they have nothing to offer except a bunch of retreads. Svend Robinson? How about Dawn Black, who convieniately leaves out that she worked in Premier Clark's office that hatched the axe St. Mary's campaign. Hope about 'don't kick me out of my subsidized housing while I'm an MP' Libby Davies? Did Chow earn her nomination on merit? She has failed twice already. Layton himself held the reigns in the last Parlaiment yet he assisted Harper in defeating the Government. The question is... will Harper reward Layton for his incompetence. Likely not. Harper says the courts will keep him in check. He doesn't need Layton anymore.

Therefore...? What, that most immigrants are more centre to right? Nice logic.

Why does Bill Tieleman get to write about politics? He's directly involved with the NDP, isn't he?

As for Liberal scandals, as I've noted elsewhere, name me a provincial or federal government of any length not to have scandal and corruption? Campbell? Check. Mulroney? Check. Glen Clark? Check. Harcourt? Check. Vanderzalm? Check. Right wing, left wing, centre, they all eventually succumb to scandal. No doubt Harper's gang will, too, if they get in, and we'll repeat the whole process again. And so on and so on. That's why you've got to vote for the party you agree with philosophically.

Yeah. What a snake. The courts and the big bad senate...until he can take care of them so that they *can't* keep him in check. Canadians are so stupid to trust this guy.

The courts and senate will keep Harper in check only until he has his chance to replace them all with those philosophically in line with his thinking.

Hey! Competition time! OK everybody, here's the idea:

Let's see who can come up with the first paragraph of Harper's first "Gee, we had no idea the finances were in such a mess so all bets are off regarding our promises!" speech after he takes office!

Anyone game?

I bet were all looking forward to the Cons reforming poll contracts to private firms with the lowest bids *wink* *wink*. Sounds about as good as free votes. As if they don't know how members vote anyways.

And the media... its just like our Bill Tielman NDP activist up here. We're supposed to trust media when they openly endorse parties with at best, half truths?

Toronto looks like a Lib lock. The Toronto Star is endorsing Martin. Go figure. The Globe and Mail is endorsing Harper. The west is rich with Con support. Go figure.

The CBC's reward for staying somewhat neutral? Privatization with a majority Con government. Go figure.

Skip Tracer: I'm betting he'll take credit for it "for the good of the country and fiscal imbalance", Har Har!

Harper has the notwithstanding clause to ignore the courts and the Queen will grant him permission to increase the Senate with enough pals, Like Mulroney did to implement the GST, so he doesn't need to worry about them either.

Peter,

I think this assessment of yours is a realistic outcome expectation. The corporate media is openly working and plumping for a Conservative majority of course, with all but the thinnest veil of pretence of any objectivity left-, with the Globe and Mail even seriously talking about Harper's cabinet choices like it's a done deal.. (Which it may be, but of which they certainly don't know any better than we do.)

The phenomena we really have to fear is that great twin tendency of "the mass" to (1.) follow the herd, (Which effect the corporatist media is attempting to create.) and (2.) to want to get on board with a perceived "winner". But in all possibility as well, the resentments and negativities toward "the system" which have begun to take root over the recent Neocon years, right across the country, will be sufficient to over-ride this, what I describe as a "good times phenomena". (And I am of the view that this twin tendency is a "good times" phenomena... that breaks down in a period of social decline.)

If you turn out to be right, as I suspect you will be, even in the face of this incredible propaganda machine that has been thrown at the public over this election, I think it is highly likely and we can safely conclude that a prolonged period of "minority governance" is firmly established, contrary to business class wishes, reflecting an unsettled public mood in the process of transforming its old/traditional political loyalties toward the parties of the ruling class system. Which I think is a good thing, And, despite all the predictions of a Conservative majority, like I say, I think your estimate is still the greater likelihood.; a Conservative minority. (Is the the limb I am out precariously on, what I hear cracking behind me?)

Which to repeat yet again, for I think it holds great significance for the likes of us, if so, indicates a profound mood and loyalties shift/conflict finally underway in the great public consciousness.

In any case brother, we shall soon see. But even if we are wrong, and it is a Conservative majority, that is going to produce its own not entirely negative effects going forward, even if more drawn out, as I have suggested to you before in our private conversations. A time of major change is well underway I think, having begun in the late 70s and now approaching a qualitatively new level that leads to the escalated likelihood of social upheavals. And it is too far along and too globally widespread to be called back now, even by these ruling class forces.

The point for them has to be, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. :-)

Just remember, the polls last year were wrong. I know the pollsters deny that. They expect us to believe that what actually happened was that millions of Cdn's changed their mind en masse in the last 2 days of the campaign.

Right. That is much more likely I'm sure than polling simply being wrong due to people not wanting to talk to pollsters or just outright lying to them. For some reason Con voters just seem more willing to talk to pollsters.

Liberal in-fighting and skullduggery aside, though I normally support the NDP, I am voting strategically this time.

In its stupidity, the NPD has cleared the way for a Conservative majority. What in the name of reason has caused the NDP strategists to think that things wouldcome out any differently for the NDP this time around?

As a result of its poor judgment this time around, I think the NDP is sunk as a player perhaps forever. The change from mass to cadre party could never have worked for a party whose job it is to be the conscience of the nation that lives beside the US.

My advice to the NDP? Go back to your grassroots.

Bill, good article and thank you for reminding us of who the movers and shakers are or were in the Liberal party in this province.

Strange isn't it that so many of them were also up to their neck in BC Liberal Party politics.

Of course, for some of them, this election is only another hurdle to stuble over as they prepare for their days in court.

And, as much as I think Paul Martin deserves as bad a whipping as he is going to get next Monday, I can't help but think his predecessor was, no is, a selfish little egoist who is bitter he will never earn the respect of Canadians that his predecessor got for actually doing something.

I wonder, will the snow be falling in Montreal late Monday evening when Paul Martin heads out for a walk to clear his head from all the bad news.

Perhaps he'll then he'll realize he doesn't really want to be prime minister.

Grw

I agree all government will eventually succumb to the temptation of power, some quicker than others. This is why we kick them out every so often. The time has come for the Liberals to leave and it will be the best thing for them and the country. If the CPC gets a majority they can thank Martin and Layton for it. The CPC has worked hard and cleaned themselves up after the last lesson. I don’t think any CPC supporter thought they would get more than 1 seat in Quebec, if they get close to the projections it will be the key ingredient to the remaking of the CPC as a national party.

My statement is an observation that the majority of the immigrants I meet our not likely to support the NDP. I am sure someone will have a different experience, depending on the groups they encounter the most.

Could somebody please tell me when does one cease to be an "immigrant" and become a Canadian?

I've lived in Canada for 51 years and, as a British subject, received full voting etc. rights 50 years ago.

Am I still an immigrant, or a "new Canadian" ?

By the way, I'll vote NDPin the very faint hope to get rid of our present Reform holdover seatwarmer.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Indeed Frank, they were and may well yet be again.
The waters are even muddier than I suggest above.

Oooooo. A very astute observation to come out of a piece of such brevity. (I wish I could do that. :-)

But you are right, of course, except it had to happen sooner or later anyway, I think. We are in a neoconservative social situation that could not/ cannot hold for too, too long. So, whilst I share much of your critique of the NDP otherwise, it was simply a judgement call of the NDP that has not yet been definitively been proven yet to be either right or wrong, I think. Some more time and development needs to pass before that will be known for sure.

Otherwise I agree with you. With one cautionary note: Rather than letting ones anger and disappoinment with the NDP cloud their judgement, indeed as you suggest, do vote strategically , for whomever in your riding has the greater likelihood of holding down/ defeating the Conservatives. The NDP are a disappointment, I think, but they are not so immediately dangerous as this Neocon crew.

It is not a time for sentimentality or blind negative reaction, but a cool calculating head, in my view. At least until another or other alternatives emerge. And they will over time, given the nature of the socio-political and economic period we are in.

Regards. :-)

Today Buzz Hargrove pleaded with Quebec voters to vote for the separatist Bloc, if they were not going to vote for the Liberals.
He's actually recommending voting for separatists in order to stop The Conservatives.
Is this not extreme desperation ?
This should assure more than a few Con seats in Quebec, what a goofball this guy is.
Only 5 more sleeps, I wish it was longer because it gets better for the Con everyday.

"Rather than letting ones anger and disappoinment with the NDP cloud their judgement, indeed as you suggest, do vote strategically , for whomever in your riding has the greater likelihood of holding down/ defeating the Conservatives. The NDP are a disappointment, I think, but they are not so immediately dangerous as this Neocon crew."

Coyote: You are quite right on both counts. Voting strategically, as Murray Dobbin pointed out, is tricky. And voting simply to punish to NDP is tantamount to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Didn't the Cons vote with those Bloc separatists several times in non-confidence motions to bring down the Libs?

Pot meet kettle

In large Urban ridings(Toronto , Hamilton, Vancouver ) the Liberals have secured the immigrant vote mainly due to Trudeau and the charter and his immigration polices, allot of folks feel grateful of the rights they hold. But the last couple of years have seen an attack on immigrants of color especially those from the mid east, security certificates, The Arar case, and abandonment of their core values, you will see the Liberals have lost their way and taken the immigrant vote
for granted , disenchanted Libs will vote NDP , immigrants are smart and pay attention to wing nuts like Stockwell and his musings. Stock well would personally deliver all refugees back to the hands of the death squad leaders to apply property. Don't forget about Haiti, Hedy got fryed at the last all candidates meeting over Haiti, Pun intended.

This Liberal party has made the tragic mistake Kerry made in the US , they have become just like the conservatives, why would anyone still vote Liberal, the good news is we still have a party to go to that represents the values of Canadians. Oh and

In its stupidity, the NPD has cleared the way for a Conservative majority.

Give me a break, the poor victim Liberals have done a great job all on their own, god I hate
Liberal Hacks, vote NDP in BC as they have a better chance of getting elected.

Don't lose your nerve folks, you should be finding ways to take down and smear conservatives and not panic over strategic voting.

Struggle is about fighting and losing, fighting and losing and fighting and winning

It's not a silly tricks on voting day,

Ways to fight,

1) Challenge and attack the MSM
2) Vote and take others to the polls with you.
3) Volunteer, donate money , put up signs etc
4) Get involved in citizens groups and NGO's to resist, god knows we are getting ready to
fight.

Forget polls, who answers polls, old grey haired men sitting at home watching Fox news,
sound familiar Ronnie, don't worry we will let you know off any Orange alerts.

Ed:
Some would say its when you got here.
Others would say its when you learned to speak the common language(s).
Others would say its when you start paying taxes.
Others would say its when you get your citizenship.
Some would say that possession is 9/10ths of the law, that its when Canada claims you with granted citizenship and taxation, and the last tenth is reserved for the arguements of bigots who don't want immigrants here, along with a few who would ideologically counter such extremes with claims that there is no such thing as possession persay with their own ideology. Give unto Caeasar that which is caesars, and give unto God that which is Gods.

I would say that it is also ideological. It begins when we are willing to respect and abide by Canada's constitution, assuming that we are already old and capable enough to understand and interpret what this is, particularly the charter of rights and laws that govern this country, including challenges to the system when such laws are proven to be unfair. Those who are too young, are granted citizenship based on the good faith of their sponsors, namely their parents.

Above all, for me, it begins when we call this country home by assuming the responsibilities as stewards of the lands and waters that host us for all of the generations of life to come. To own this country in our brief tenure, is to maintain it.

Are there traitors? Yes. Most certainly, ideologically within these parameters, and just as quickly, I'll point out that if Quebec wants to legally challenge this nation with separation, as long as they aren't killing anyone over it or violating any constitutional laws to do so, this challenge to the courts, or violation however it is legally percieved, should be suited to the judgement of the courts.

The same goes with any laws that are broken by any other groups or individuals. Whatever judgement, be it sanction or reward, should fit the violation or crime, until the laws themselves, are challenged in the courts. Speaking of my own opinion here, if we want to vote for Cons, the punishment will fit the crime.

If we want to support governments who are willing to sell us out to corporate interests and make constitutional changes, we have to respect the democratic system in place that put them there, regardless of the propaganda, or otherwise and live with the consequences, even if that means changes to the constitution and erosion of the protection of human rights and freedoms. Even if it means the dismantling of the country itself.

Our constitution isn't written in stone. Until our constitution is one that isn't subject to changes, it will always be under the threat of negative (or positive) change. Something that every Canadian should, or is likely to seriously ask themselves is, "should we allow governments loaded with conflicts of interests to make these changes?"

The only idea I'm in agreement with so far on this underlying threat to our country from weak majority federal goverments, is the one proposed by Peter Dimitrov, but it has to be carefully thought out and responsibly proposed, especially so in a climate that is seemingly void of reason, a climate that is most often created by a weak majority govermnent.

Peter, Coyote and Frank: Right again.

I find it amazing that we haven't had a story saying how the NDP will give the Conservatives a majority for splitting the progressive slate as we did by this author and many others supportive of the NDP when they accussed the Greens of splitting the vote in the last federal and provincial election. Can we hear Murray Dobbin on this point?

ps, no lover of Liberals, no lover of religious zealots mascarading as Conservatives, no lover of NDP or any other party...the party systems are dead! why do we even beg their attentions?

When asked today on radio, Libby Davies skirted a question asked of her and of Dave Haggert, the question was:

How many eligible voters were there in Vancouver East?

How many party members does the Federal NDP and Federal Liberals have in Vancouver East? and...

How many party members attended the nominating meetings of both Davies and Haggert?

Davies only answered the question regarding the number of eligible voters...approx 65,000. She then proceeded to ignore the rest of the questions. Haggart only answered that he thought there were 40 people at his nomination meeting.

Out of 65,000 people eligible to vote, probably less than 75 showed up to chose these two candidates and probably less than 500 of these voters actually belong to those two parties.

Do these numbers indicate to you that we live in a healthy democracy?

Democracy was a right won by the people of Rome against the excesses of the elite, it has been hijacked by the elite for some time now, the courts are the tools to oppress the poor and working class. As a citizen we afford the rights we have fought for and continue to struggle to hold. Election day is important but the days in-between are more important. We can elect a majority in this country with only say 37% of support and much less when we discount the ones who are to young to vote or to disenfranchised to vote etc.

So it is my right as a citizen to resist new oppressive laws, we as Canadians are to meek and distracted and allow our rights to be taken away to easily. We need to band together and resist unjust laws, in fact this is the only way to affect changes in the law.

Maybe a conservative government will invigorate the left and union movement again. Maybe Canadians have been to complacent and need a wakeup call like Harper is going to give us. These are exciting times, wait
to the cons come out of the closet.

Should we publicly finance political parties if they no longer represent even a fraction of voting Canadians?

Folks can exercise their democratic rights by not voting thus preventing any political party from receiving your portion of public financing ($1.75/year). If you don't think this adds up consider this...

The Liberals took in $50 million and the Conservatives $35 million of taxpayer's money to finance the current campaign. With so little members and so few of those members that actually nominate candidates to represent us, why are we continuing to finance them.

In the city of Portland, Oregon candidates for their civic election can receive public financing for their campaigns only if they have 1,000 eligible voters sign cards and submit $5 to the candidate. If a candidate for public office can get 1000 folks to pay $5 for their candidacy then they've earned their right to receive public financing. It shows that people are interested in their ideas and policies.

At present, we are subjected to debates from political parties that have to stand on street corners to get 100 people to sign their nomination papers (without paying anything). Many have diffulties fulfilling even this simple condition.

In the riding that encompasses Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Mission, only 23 folks showed up to nominate the Conservative candidate.

Make public financing more onerous on political parties and their candidates while continuing to reduce the amount individuals can give to a political party. Let's say no more than $100/yr per eligible voter.

A

absolutely, Stuart. If they get in.

I still maintain the Canadian public will not vote them in. In spite of the fact that it seems some vote against their own interests because as long as others are getting hurt more they take pleasure from that, or as the old saying goes, 'there's a sucker born every minute'. I don't think we are that naive. Time will tell.

As far as journalist go, the US has shown that the admin has actually paid some of them for their pro-admin columns. It may have happened here as well. Some are Conservative of course, still others hope to curry favour. Anyone at the CBC can forget it. They would try to shut it down.

I heard Martin say another brilliant line today. I bet it comes from the same communications person who said, 'the US is our neighbour, not our nation' and are they good! I read that line after in the US press.
He said words to the effect, 'even Stephen Harper knows he has to be stopped'. He was referring to the comments about the liberal civil service and liberal judges.

I still think it will be a lib minority.
Here in BC, voting strategically means voting NDP because they have a better chance at ousting the Conservatives. I'm fortunate in that they are also the party which reflects my values the most.

Stuart, we saw very little invigoration of the left during Campbells first term in office here in BC. We actually witnessed nothing short of comatose from left leaders both in the union and the NDP.

These leaders sold out HEU and watched thousands of BCGEU members who supplied you and I with services turfed out. Can you remember BC Rail? The Olympics? The RAV Line? Support of P3's?

Maybe it will be different federally, but don't count on these cowards here in BC to take any substantial steps to protect citizen's rights and freedoms.

Until rank and file members wrestle back their unions from careerists in the union executives, we'll continue to have initiatives that favour the worst of globalization.

By looking at polling numbers just now, it seems that Harper's gang will have a slim majority - good!

What is forgotton by many, is that the conservatives are badly split; the reformers; the Christian right; and the old progressives. It will be a very angry caucus that Harper will have to contend with, because, he will want to win again. The fragility of this election will not help Harper in 4 years time, as he will have to face his scandals and faux paux's.

The sky is not falling - yet!

The left is divided, the right is indivisible.
The left are confused as to whether they should vote NDP or Lib.
The right will all vote Con.
The only concern the right has is will we get a minority or majority left is fighting for their very survival. Jack and Paul's jobs are in jeopardy.
I am watching CPAC right now. The Lib pundit and the NDP pundit are screaming at each other. I think a fist fight is about to breakout. Each blame one and other for the rise in Con popularity.
I read the posts here and I see the division.
A house divided will soon fall. And none too soon for me.

He won't care if he gets in again. These are corporate hatchet men. Come in, 'clean it up' and get out to their reward in the private sector.

Gee have you been reading the ICHING? lol, Ron.
Your poetic streak is showing again.

Wow. Sounds like cpac is the station to watch at this moment.

Fait lux, you are an immigrant until you stop calling yourself one. I presume you now have Canadian citizenship given that you vote, unless of course the English still have a leg up on the rest of the world's immigrants in Canada.

I would certainly hope that colonial attitude got completely severed when we created a new Constitution.

Josephine, you appear to be yet another of those people who fear and hate the conservatives, but have an extremely hard time to get yourself to vote with the common folks.

I appreciate there is an air of disdain for the NDP among some progressives here.

It's almost like you are all afraid to admit you are left or that you actually believe the bs spewed out by BC's media mogels since 1991.

I'd urge you to get over it. No sense in telling the world you are voting NDP and then turn around and spray all over the party.

Yes, yes, terrible unions, terrible leadership, terrible this terrible that, so what.

Look at the bloody alternative.

God this site seems to be turning into a mutual backscratching centre.

Ron Erwin wrote:

RE,I refer you to Grumpy's post:

That's not wishful thinking; that's reality. Don't you think Belinda's boyfriend in Nova Scotia has his knives ready to stick into Harper the first chance he gets? Do you really believe that Bay Street high rollers give a sh*t about gay-hating, church-going Alberta hicks? There is an east-west and urban-rural divide in the CPC that is every bit as nasty as the labour-eco divide in the NDP (although I believe the NDP may resolve that issue before the Toronto stockbrokers ever break bread with the Lethbridge evangelists).

Redrivergirl:

There is definitely the possibility that you could be right. Several things are the same as the last election, and yet, some things are different and they favor the Liberals.

The first is that the polls weren't accurate in the last election. If anyone can bring up the stat's of the last election between the gaps of what the polls suggested and how people actually voted, I would love to see them.

The second is that the polls themselves, if they can be taken seriously at all in this world of corporate influence and conflicts of interest, are suggesting a narrowing in percentages between the PC's and the Liberals. The pendulum could be swinging the other way, and there is 5 days to go. the soft vote isn't the libs, bloc or even NDP at this point. Its Con and Green votes.

The third and perhaps most important of all, is that record voters turned out and voted early. This could be weather and snowbird related, but it could also signify that there will be a stronger voter turnout than the last election overall, and this could be all it takes to dilute high income voters who traditionally vote in high numbers and traditionally vote for tax breaks and social program cuts.

Lastly, the X factor, C syndrome, Q effect, pick a label, it could appear. Old haunts and ghosts from the political past, or activists from the present could sway some voters either way out of the blue, but most of us have made up our minds.

Tight races could still be affected by this X factor in terms of good journalism and old memories. The more chances good journalists have to look at Conservative promises and quotes, the more they will find that promises favor the rich and statements are riddled with contradictions.

A prime example is Harpers blunder yesterday of mentioning that majorities don't mean absolute power due to a liberal senate, opening the door for good journalists to challenge the fallacies to this statement and connect historical Mulroney dots of increased senates. The more Harper talks majority, the more it will scare voters and that's what is happening.

Thing is, Flanagan is mimicking the successful Republican and PC runs of the past with excellent results, but what Flanagan doesn't realize is that his own party isn't trusted the same way as the Republicans and PCs once were.

Bush had Reagan. Mulroney had Pearson. Harper, already known for extremes, has Mulroney. This is a fatal error in campaign judgement, and it could be enough to sink them over the next few days, and their plan has been to talk majority only in the last week of the campaign, following the blueprint that worked for their idealized governments, but its a flawed plan under such circumstances.

I hope your right, but we won't know until the 23rd. ;-).

Grub
I don't think that you can use his words about an alleged split within the Con ranks is anything as bad as the real time split of the left that may affect this election.
The split on the left is something that could cost both Lib and NDP.
The alleged split on the right will have no affect on this election.
And, when you say "gay hating, church-going Alberta hicks " were you there people, or just their leadership ?

Allan,

I'm not English, but was given Brit citizenship etc. by the government for my valuable services.

A Canadian citizen since I can remember, my third and most precious one I wouldn't change for anything.

My question was more or less a joke, but I have to laugh when little kids are called Canadians and my 50 years residence only qualifies me as a "new" Canadian. Of course, it doesn't bother me at all, as I think I've earned my keep in this country.

Ed Deak.

Ron:

I think you are spot on with regards to this election. The right is doing an admirable job of maintaining their collective composure and muzzling their most outspoken.

The period after the election will be interesting. It will take a miracle for Harper to keep control of the party after the election unless he wins a strong majority.

The ficons will be pushing their agenda. The socons their agenda. The western separatist agenda. I might vote conservative just to watch the implosion.

One of the big sticks that the media will beat you with is the polls. Polls influence people heavily to vote one way or the other.
But remember that polls mean basically nothing at the riding level.
So, by all means do the strategic voting thing.
but base it on the info available at the LOCAL RIDING level. And remember if corruption is the issue, the best solution is to put in jack as the coalition partner. He can watch either big bad lad and stop them from getting too crooked.
If you are mad as hell and cant take any more, and want to punish the liberals, why take the extremist route and vote conservative? We know their leader stands for bush economics. And bush economics mean tax cuts for billionaires and kicking mad people out of the mental institutions and kicking unemployable people onto the streets.
And the economic situation under the liberals in canada is not terrible. So, if you want to punish them and it is possible in your local situation, please vote ndp rather than conservative. Harper is way too loyal to bush economics. He gets all girly about the republicans. But remember, it will be YOUR kids going to iran and korea so he can say "we love george" or sing "happy birthday mr president". It will be your kids that have to pay back the debt that he will make. It will be your pension that will be reduced because there is no money in the kitty to pay for it after paying for said wars.
The Liberals with slightly left of centre policys have the finances in pretty good order.
Lets not ruin it with a jump to the far right and a huge "unexpected" tax cut of billions to the idle rich and corperations as soon as harper gets sworn in and then a "surprise" corespondingly gigantic deficit in the finances within 6 months.
Is it too late for a quick ndp advert?
One based on southpark? Where Jacks and even Martin's head have that weird canadian bouncyness thingy about them and they say aboot. While Harpers has none of that about it?
It might be effective.
and the southpark guys might even approve it
Brian

Greetings all - some interesting comments.

Regarding my politics, I've never hid in the least that I am an NDP supporter. But I don't work for the party or answer to it - for example, check out my stand against proportional representation, which the NDP supports strongly (and wrongly).

I don't think any journalist is truly objective and I enjoy articles written by those who support the Liberal, Conservative, Green or other parties if they are informative, thoughtful and thorough. My 24 hours colleague Erin Airton is a longtime Conservative whose views I usually disagree with - but I like reading her perspective.

You don't have to vote NDP or agree with me to learn something from my articles - let's have a good debate and let readers decide on the facts presented - not on the politics of the person writing them.

Of course those politics should be noted but their writing should not be dismissed because of them. The more views the better.

Thanks for all your comments - it's going to be a hell of an interesting Monday evening January 23!

little ronnie has put his racist crayon away and raised a good point for once. little ronnie writes:

"Today Buzz Hargrove pleaded with Quebec voters to vote for the separatist Bloc, if they were not going to vote for the Liberals."

That comment from Buzz means nothing in the grand scheme of things, ronnie. It is just personal self-serving scuzz. Nothing to do with left or right, NDP or Con-nazi. Buzz is in trouble with his own union, ronnie. The old UAW was once a powerhouse in the auto/parts sector. That sector has been decimated as quickly as Buzz made friends in the wider labour movement by raiding other unions anywhere and everywhere. The auto/parts sector is a minority in the now CAW, and the old boys power network is going, going, gone. But, I am certainly not going to engage in the mindless union bashing that you find entertaining, ronnie. I believe that everyone should be in a union, but that members need to take control of their unions.

In my view, Buzz represents everything that everyone should take issue with in the organized labour movement. Geez, the best comment that Bob White had about this guy was that "Buzz was always around." Talk about acknowledging that the CAW structure is inbred and corrupt! Buzz is clearly reading the tea leaves and simply playing the Larry Campbell card by fellating the natural governing party, expecting a Senate seat in return. That will soften the blow when the rank and file in the CAW blows his ass out onto the street.

How about Buzz? Too bad the left can't avoid the wingnut effect........

Wallace believes everyone should be in a union. I don't know how that would work in reality.
Wouldn't Govt. revenues fall drastically as the tax base (us) would have a limited income, being that their wages would be capped to a level that they might exceed if they weren't in a union.
Productivity would suffer and our GDP would drop to a dangerous level.
Canadians standard of living would plummet worse than it already has.
You better think that idea through Wallace, it doesn't add up to me.

'You better think that idea through Wallace, it doesn't add up to me.' pretty difficult for wally-boy to think anything through. what a ridiculous statement. of course there's a need for unions, but beyond advocating for safety in the workplace and decent wages and benefits for their members, they should check their ideological agenda at the door. at least buzz hargrove is somewhat pragmatic in his approach, but unions like the bctf are outrageous in their abuse of power.

Brian White, it feels so odd to be on the same side of the page as you.

Good post. Yes, I would love to see a Southpark episode on the Canadian election.

Stockwell Day.

tks,
rjm

Further to the Buzz Bomb dropped in Quebec, he further stuck his foot in his mouth.
To further trash Mr. Harper he trashed the Province of Alberta, saying that being an Albertan is the explanation for his separatist leanings.
Now, both the Liberals and NDP have given up on Alberta, but not Buzz.
It's a dangerous game he plays. Albertans may decide not to but CAW cars with their riches from the oilfield.
Not to mention that they all use gas and oil to even work, which is supplied from Alberta sometimes. What about the billions of dollars that Alberta contributes to the economy.
This man is an idiot. It could cost his workers jobs.

"Democracy was a right won by the people of Rome against the excesses of the elite, it has been hijacked by the elite for some time now, the courts are the tools to oppress the poor and working class. As a citizen we afford the rights we have fought for and continue to struggle to hold. Election day is important but the days in-between are more important. We can elect a majority in this country with only say 37% of support and much less when we discount the ones who are to young to vote or to disenfranchised to vote etc. " - Stuart.

Whoa, are you sure you don't mean the Greeks. They were the ones who overthrough their tyrants, and installed full rights for every free Greek born make. Of course, it wasn't the working people who brought this in, it was one group of elited who sided with military leaders to overthrow the tyrants, who threateneded their mining interests. (and they randomly chose citizens on a rotating basis to fill their bureacratic positions, and used a process of referendum similar to BC's Citizens Assembly to validate recomeendations)

Roman history is extremely interesting in its battle for social rights, but this was never done through a full democracy. They never had equal voting rights but used a weighted system of voting based on wealth, and the battle was between the plebian families and the old senate families, in which the richer plebes (who profiteed largely from the rise of mediterranean merchantism) fought to have power go from the self appointed senate consuls to the elected tribunes of the plebs. They never quite resolved this, although they came close to in the last cenutry BC, when a series of miliatary leaders including Caesar each ran their coupe d'etat across the Senate, before Augustus was ultimately able to seize nearly absolute power for a hereditary position. However, they did have elected plebians such as the Graechi who pushed large social reform agendas including land redistribution, universal wheat allotments, and a large scale series of colonization in order to relieve huge urban problems that arose during these times. But short of the slave revolts, Roman political reform was always pushed by one family or group of elites who appeal to popular support to secure power from another group of vested powers.

Greek born make = Greek born male..

Brain, I don't get how "Bush had Reagan. Mulroney had Pearson." Mulroney had Clark's brief minority government behind him. Clark looks like a model of integrity compared to what followed.

Given the slimey origins of the current Conservative party and their booting of progressives from the ranks of their new party, I really can't see that the war between Martin and Chretien forces is particularly damaging to the Liberals. It strikes me all three of the main parties have some pretty nasty internaI workings in their pasts -- none of them look like models of democracy to me.

I couldn't stop laughing at Harper's latest attempt to make conservatives look less disasterous than even they know they are. I loved the fact he has confidence that the "Liberal Senate" will make sure they (the frightingly incompetentant CRAPers) will stay "within the checks and balances". That is definitely a new approach - we are supposed to have our confidence given a boost that the party that we know don't reflect the Canadian perspective can't do much damage because the party they (the CRAPers) have called "corrupt" (ie the Liberals) will make sure they stay in line. Only those willing to vote for the conservatives in the first place would have reasoning convoluted enough to find that line of thought coherent.
I find myself in the same position as Josephine. I was quite pleased when Mansbridge kept asking Layton how on earth he thinks he can compromise with the senseless when he couldn't persuade the Liberals - who share many of the same values as the NDP but have been in the system long enough to know that change cannot occur overnight without causing milk to spill somewhere in this great diverse nation. The problem with the Cons is that even if they are given the reign for a short period of time, they do irreparable amount of damage. Our rising electricity bills are testimony to Mulroney's wonderful NAFTA brainchild today - as is Terason now being owned by Americans. Obviously those "socialists" that the Americans so despise in South America are far brighter than our neocons. People like redrivergirl and the howling coyote make this sinking ship a pleasant ride down the waterfall.

Bill Tieleman.
I'm not much for quotes, as it takes the flavor out of the entire message and can sometimes be mis-leading but:

- let's have a good debate and let readers decide on the facts presented - not on the politics of the person writing them.

This might work, assuming that you did present all of the facts... but some relevant facts weren't presented. I, in opinionated fashion, applaud your efforts in noting the individuals currently running, as well as noting specific conflicts of interest. I really do. But from there, it ended.

You concentrated the rest of your article on old news. Since these are old issues, there was plenty of opportunity to follow up on what happened to these individuals from old stories.
Where is Herb Daliwhal now? Running as an independent and not media predicted for success (not that that matters these days). Where is Kinsella? David Anderson? Waiting for an opportunity that will never come. Old news, old smears, old scandals, old conflicts of interest, its all stale and dealt with in some ways, by the guy in the pic.

Why didn't you concentrate more on the new names? We have an election in 5 days to reflect on history, but these are knew players. To imply that history will repeat itself in the same ways... is, very possibly, a distortion of truth.

Are you going to apologize to them personally for your smears if you are wrong? Stick to the conflicts of interest.

Its not so much what is there, Bill, thats up for debate. Its the missing facts that are so relevant. The reality of it is, the full truth is impossible to present, unless it is kept purposely simple, it is presented in its proper sequence from most to least, and, UNLESS WE ACTUALLY TRY TO PRESENT FULL TRUTH to begin with.

And, as you yourself have put, bias is impossible to remove in its entirety, but then again... If journalists cared to look for all of the facts in terms of most important to least and simple to complex within the paper and ink afforded to get "the facts" out on realistic timelines in political coverage, you would have a story instead of story telling.

The bottom line, is... the motives behind what people say and do, especially in the public life of journalism and opinion persuasion, has to be asked to determine a good judgement on determining how much is factual and how much is biased or opinionated view.

Part of our problem with media lies within a good portion of the public still believing that Newspapers report news. You know, facts. Unfortunately, it has become more views based on half truths at best and this has led directly to a violation of the public trust, because we look at a paper and see the weather and stocks and sports scores and see all of these facts. We see what happened event stories and see facts. We open the papers up to political columns and only some of us see it for what it is... views blended in with facts (if were lucky to see facts at all).

My point is, Bill... if you consider yourself to be a good journalist, you would look at every BC MP candidate running, note every conflict of interest and report it, regardless of what flag they fly, if thats your true theme. You know, show what should be your own bias that every good reporter has in supporting the full truth.

If you can't support fully revealed truth, I can't support you. What I'll wind up doing instead, is oppose you. If your theme is conflict of interest, integrity and honesty then get color blind and list them all, regardless of political stripe. Until then, if I want half truths sluffed off as good fodder to learn from, All I have to do is go to church on Sundays. (What to do with the other 6 days of the week)

...Liberal judges that like gays
...Liberal Senators snoozing in the Red Chamber
...Liberal public servants working in downtown offices
...Preventing honest Albertans from running the federal government the way they want
...In Canada
...In 2006

We're not making this up

Avicenna: ;-)
Frank: 8-(

I have to day Rick Mercer is doing a fantastic parody of this whole campaign. I caught his mock campaign ads on the tube last night. He took equal shots at all the parties. I've never found Canadian comedy to be all that funny, so it's great to see someone has taken the leash off & let him say what he wants.

His schtick on the Liberal attack-ads in particular was just hilarious -

Not surprisingly, little ronnie and little elliot leap to the bait and engage in shallow anti-union rhetoric. Let's see, ronnie first:

"Wouldn't Govt. revenues fall drastically as the tax base (us) would have a limited income, being that their wages would be capped to a level that they might exceed if they weren't in a union."

No ronnie, it is well established that union membership in any industry drives workers' income up, and drives up the income and benefits of non-union workers in the same industry as well. It is also well established that union rates drive up management salaries and benefits.

"Productivity would suffer and our GDP would drop to a dangerous level."

Canadian labour productivity is amongst the highest in the world. This is the main reason that the auto-pact remains in place. The level of productivity from Canadian union workers produces a higher margin than in the US. This is due in part to a higher level of public education.

"Canadians standard of living would plummet worse than it already has."

Tell me again: why does much of the world want to come to Canada?

Now on to little elliot:

"at least buzz hargrove is somewhat pragmatic in his approach, but unions like the bctf are outrageous in their abuse of power."

What you call pragmatism little elliot, I call sleaze. Where the CAW has a top down hierarchy common to many large unions, the BCTF is directly controlled by its members. Your comment tells me that you react to headline BS and have no direct knowledge of how unions work. Do us all a favour and do a little research before flaming.

"of course there's a need for unions, but beyond advocating for safety in the workplace and decent wages and benefits for their members, they should check their ideological agenda at the door."

That ideological agenda has provided Canadian workers with one of the best standards of living on the planet. There is no doubt that ideology is under attack by the very elements that gave rise to workers' movements across the industrial world. Supported of course by shallow thinkers like yourself, little elliot.

Oh wait, I forgot, little elliot did it all on his own. His family never used public health care, never used socialist public schooling, never had to stoop to accepting socialist union driven workplace standards and conditions. His Mom has not and will not accept socialist public support for the elderly, because that would be wrong. little elliot did it all on his own.

But hey, keep up the commentary little elliot. Youtr hypocrisy is entertanining.

The internal problems in the wider union movement are well known, and are being dealt with internally as members take back control of their organizations. I have no problem acknowledging what is wrong in the union movement today. little ronnie and little elliot cannot get past narrow, selfish attacks on a movement that has given both of them the good life.

But, let's hope, in time, that the large unions built now on a corporate structure, return to the bottom up organizations that built the standard of living we enjoy in this country. I have a connection to one of the unions that has evolved into the corporate entity that I describe above, so I think that my comments are well researched. The BCTF, however, little elliot, is not one of those organizations.

Wallace, I was responding to your statement that all workers should be in a union. And therefore I contend that Govt. revenues would go down because the incomes of everyone ( because they are all in a union according to your scenario ) would be capped to perhaps a decent level, but not as much as someone could earn without being in a union.
Your response above is not based on your all union dream, it's based on the way it is now, which I don't argue with. Your other two points are equally vacuous as they don't address you scenario, but are based on the status quo.
Nice try though.

the bctf is a joke wally-boy. blatant and expensive electioneering with their members cash, resolutions to stop the iraq war, illegal strikes, more self-righteousness than glennie clark... shall i continue?
i'm sure they give a rat's ass about the students in the classrooms.

Elliot opines:

Sorry Elliot, but "advocating for safety... and decent wages and benefits for their members" IS an ideological agenda. However, I take it you're not opposed to that particular flavor of ideology.

I suppose where you get nervous is when unions further advocate for safety, and decent wages and benefits for ALL workers in society, eh? Is that the ideology you're opposed to?

rjm - the public whacko's are much less damaging than the closet ones.

Ron, have you ever seen a rich society without well paid workers?

Anyway, don't count your chickens yet, the Cons lead is only 6% now and heading south.

According to EKOS, the undecided is 14% which makes this election too close to call.

Lets stop catering to the lowest common denominator, aka Ronnie or Elliott

Their the ugliest form of social engineering you can find and the typical old white red neck who will vote conservative, they are beyond education and a waste of time

Their the CKNW army of clones and Peter Warren wannabies, if you want to get into heir minds just tune into CKNW for an hour or two, not one original thought. Although they would make a good case study for media and propaganda their otherwise a waste of time.

Your right Wallace , it makes me sick how these folks have benefited from Unions and a socialist economy and yet still want to be American, I want anyone who hates our system to pay their own way, write a cheque for your subsidized education(probably not a issue for Ronnie) all heath care received etc etc etc, theirs more in life than God , Guns and Gays, go forward Christian soldiers , I forget the song. In fact just wait to you see the CPP privatized, health care gone and the removal
of the Wheat board and subsidies for small Canadian farmers, some will still thank you Steve, thanks for your elitist tax cut at my expense, we are still on our knees under the table hoping for a few crumbs will fall to the floor.

safety an ideology? anybody home?

An SES/CPAC survey issued on Wednesday portrayed a much tighter race. It had the Conservatives holding steady at 37 percent, with for the Liberals rising to 32 percent, from 30 percent on Tuesday.

Sixteen percent had not yet made up their minds in the SES survey of 1,200 voters, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Yep, did you hear the news last night, they have been raging over a break threw in Quebec and for the first time last night they said, well the conservatives "hope " to get a seat in Quebec, I love it, the tactic by the Libs is actually quite brilliant, drive fear into the voter about a conservative majority to get your vote out. Unleash Duceppe on Steve, keep it up guys, keep referring to them as the American party. It seems to resonate unless
you live in Alberta. Keep talking about Iraq, keep talking about CPP to seniors, etc, do the job the media is not.

Stockwell Day.

tks,
rjm

In response to The Brain - my article was not an attempt to review the position of every candidate for office from every party - it was to look at how Prime Minister Paul Martin took control of the Liberal Party and the country.

I have no idea what "relevant information" has been left out. Every article has a focus and perspective.

As to old information, yes, that's true but elections are a time to review the record of parties in order to make decisions.

Regrettably most media regurgitate news releases and candidate message boxes in their coverage - I think analysing the past performance of the Liberals is well worthwhile.

I support "fully revealed truth" but I don't have the time to write the series of books that would require!

Frank And Stuart, you are off the dial for nothing. This all started with Wallace musing that ALL workers in Canada should be in a union.
You are not paying attention. We are not talking about the status quo. If someone wants to be in a union, fine, that's their business, but is all people must be in a union, that would be ridiculous.
It would bankrupt the country for the reasons I posted above.
The SES CPAC poll just came out a few minutes ago. They have Con by 7%, others are way more, 12 to 18%. So Stuart, I don't know where you get your information. Borque is on Adler right now on CKNW, he has all the latest information.

It was a great article Mr Tieleman

Those who do not understand the past cannot move forward in a constructive way. I think this election coverage is the worst I have ever seen. The obsession with polls and lack of any real debate over party platforms , they keep saying the conservatives are running a good campaign , it that was elections have come down to , a 3 week PR exercise and no real
policy debate,

Some questions missed by the media

1) What will be Canada's military roll in the war on Terror
2) Which tax policy benefits which group, for example how does the 1200 tax credit break
down after taxes.
3) Where do we stand on energy policy with a global shortage on energy etc
4) What role does NAFTA have in the future, how about the FTAA with so
many South American countries going left and opting out.
5) Instead were talking about Buzz Hargrove and Jack Layton's Mustache

Answers to Stuart's questions

1. probably won't change one bit until we spend some money on upgrading the military.

2. The Con childcare benefit is a better idea, because the money goes direct to the parents, rather than from one set of politicians, to another group of politicians, then through a bureaucracy, then to CUPE workers. There won't be any money left at that point.
3. we will be fine on energy, Alberta will remain in Canada, lots of oil and gas.
4. NAFTA will remain as is. The woman elected in Chile is a moderate leftist, nothing like Hugo Chavez or the guy that got elected in Bolivia.
5. Blame Buzz for this, the guy is a buffoon.

To fight what? Upgrading requires money. The upgrade has to have a focus, what will it be? Fighting a land war in Germany? Iran? Peacekeeping? Arctic sovereignity? Defence of Canada?

In other words, the money will go to those that don't need it while those that do will be left i nthe cold. The benefit for those of low income will mean no daycare.

Alberta will be fine on energy, everyone else will pay what Opec demands. Its not our oil and gas, its Alberta's as they like to tell us and they don't like giving other Canadians discounts.

Jack Layton...
Has a mustache...
He's in Canada...
in 2006...
Ron's not making this up

POLLS
CPAC-SES C 37 L 30 N 16.6
Strategic Counsel C 42 L 24 N 17
Ipsos Reid C 38 L 26 D 19
Ekos C 36.9 L 27.2 N 19.6
Leger C 37 L 27 N 18
Pollara C 37 L 34 N 17
Average C 37 L 28 N 17

Read it and weep, there is only 4 more sleeps to go.
I don't see the trend changing or going south as Frank put it.
I did not make this up.
I am not allowed to.

Ron , I notice you missed the point like the MSM, I guess Adler on line is not the best media source.

My question was who the 1200 bucks actually benefits the most, its a Gordo tax cut.

It's a taxable benefit Ron, that means the benefit is very regressive. someone making say between 28 - 38 K per year will only get 400 bucks while someone who makes 100 K will get 1000 bucks.

The Quebec daycare system has been hailed as the best in North American and is worst taking a look at, don't believe me on the 1200 Ron, call revenue Canada and ask how much you take home on a 1200 taxable benefit, and ask for different income levels.

Yea , whatever Ron, their is no global energy crisis, no evidence of that, the price of Gas is not going up.

Check your Map Ron, only the flowering democracy of Columbia is not left, this is a real problem that BUSH has had to deal with, and Canada but hey no one is talking about it.

Did you know when polled 85% of all respondents said they don't belive in polls

Did you know that almost 80% of people polled, either refuse to answer, say they're too busy or lie?

Of course, they could be lying about that too.

You ignored my qualifier, according to EKOS, the trend is south.

Some pollsters are better than others. The last election was a nightmare for most of them. Strategic Council is about as accurate as me throwing darts at my dog.

Get real guy's, if your guy's were leading the polls, you would think they are the best thing since sliced bread.
And Ekos doesn't show a trend for Con support going south, it's rhe opposite. Where are getting your information ? From the NDP website.
Check 'nodice' or Borque Newswatch or visit the pollsters site.

That's a lousy analogy. But if my guys were leading the polls I'd be yelling "in your face Ron!"

and "Na na nanananna nanana na na hey hey hey good-bye..."

Just as I know you will do the same to me. In fact I'm kinda on pins and needles about it.

You know, I haven't even looked at their website since Chretien was PM. Party websites are known to induce sleep. Perhaps you get all excited about reading a speech Harper gave to the denizens of Markham 2 years ago but I don't.

Blame Yahoo, that's where I got the dope on EKOS from early this am. Yahoo.ca shows a very humbling picture of PM the PM trying to ... well never mind.

Anyway, here's what it says

Fourteen percent of respondents remained undecided.

That seems almost trend-ish to me, or trend-like or even trend-friendly. But if you feel EKOS has been improperly represented here then tell the boys at Yahoo.

And their off

In a small lead Steven has pulled in front, it seems his PR people have done a good job making him look like a moderate, all 7 candidates from Focus on the family and basically all of Alberta cheers, yippppp
a Canada more like the US, the dream of private heath care and more poor and gay bashing.

A good Christian county off to war . But WAIT

What's this , Little crooked Paul is biting his angles and talking trash, he is going to save Canada and Toronto to, he says come on everyone I love Canada and Steven is a true separatist, just ask Buzz

But then as they make the final turn , Jumping Jack , runs threw the middle and lets the 2 front runners argue over who's more moderate, he talks about silly issues, like reducing tuition and saving the environment and public heath care, he is winning by the skin of his mustache

But then Duceppe , well unlike the rest refuses to run because the race is held in TO and not part of the sovereign nation of Quebec, when they separate he will have his own race with only Quebecers

And will his little hat out the green party says please throw me some change, 1.75 each and one day decades from now I will win one seat. Grumpy throws him the money and then gets a tax credit of 1.50

Ronnie, says oh shit , I bet all my money of the polls. The end.

Bill Tieleman:

Oh, c'mon. Whats stopping you from writing a piece that looks at the conflicts of interest within every MP running in this province? You could have done it in less than a week, over a two month period. Instead, you wrote a piece on one party, albeit, a ruling one. With an election 4 days away, our public deserved to see the conflicts of interest within all running candidates across the country.

What are you afraid of? A raise? A promotion? Success? Do you not know how badly full truth is needed on the scope of narrow themes such as conflict of interest alone? You don't need books for it, and you don't have to smear anyone or call them dirty with connected dots on the past conflicts of interest.

All you have to do is report these conflicts of interest as they are now, and watch the "dirty" ones get a bath of justice over time, being the first one there to educate the public on who it was that put them under a microscope. So fair?

Again, what are you afraid of? Success? Doing your job? Enlighten me. Better yet, next time, enlighten the public and you can start by leaving your party bias at home.

Hey Brain ,

Why don't you just tell Bill what to write and don't be shy about it, Bill felt his article was worthy and he wrote it, live with it buddy.

Everything everyone writes is bias to some degree, its up to us to find the truth, sorry if Bill upsets you but what do you think the rest of us has to put up with, CanWest and the MSM 99% of the time.

A couple of interesting items:

National Post (Canwest) Jan.13th Report (buried on page 4)

National Post Editorial Jan.19 endorses Stephen Harper.

From above article from Jan. 13th further mentions:

.

Think there might be a link here. With friends like these who needs enemies.

Also In NP Jan. 17th Article headline which is most interesting:

All articles can be googled and brough up through Canada.com

brain, if you are so smart why don't you do it? God knows you know everything. The millions and millions of words you have posted on The Tyee could have been boiled down to one sentence.
" Hi, my name is brain, I am a dickhead. "

Elliot, thinking he's a smarty-pants asks:

Yes, Elliot, it is.

The ideology of capitalism preaches "taking care of sharehoder interests". That ideology assumes safety of workers is an unnecessary expense. If you doubt that, look at the safety record of mines in China or, better yet, the safety record of our own logging industry.

Without the union "ideology of safety" do you really believe that corporations would provide safe working conditions for their employee? Not bloody likely!

Stuart:
I'm not exactly that upset with him, here. Bill presented some names at the top that needed mentioning, and that goes far beyond the norm of journalism. Nevertheless, when your in the fish bowl, especially one like this, expect some criticisms.

Expect feedback, and ultimately, if I had felt that my comments were a complete waste of time on Bill, or vice versa, we would have saved it. Oh, we get defensive and all that when we read something we don't like, but ultimately, critisms, especially accurate ones, are what we need to grow.

My point again, is simplistic. As a journalist or writer, when starting with a theme, any theme, especially one that deals with corruption or conflicts of interest, the best stories are the ones that portray all sides, including how they begin, and why.

Are there NDP's, Cons and Greens with conflicts of interest besides BC Lib MP wannabees? Does the public have the right to know who they are, and know who is at risk to betray the public trust? Of course! And it is up to good journalists to present this, as, history does repeat itself.

This reporter does this party and that reporter does that party... and if someone doesn't do that party? The articles that are worth the read in politics are the ones that are colorblind, and stick to the theme(s) and facts of the stories as they unfold.

When reporters become one dimensional or known for bias, their own careers are stunted or end, unless they mature in their craft. Its just how it is.

As you yourself have pointed out, look at what we've got for media coverage outside of Bills realm. Its not pretty, and most of the journalists working for them are going nowhere. Any papers or newsrooms that aren't rags and one horse shows will see past works, because they follow you, and give you the old, "not at this time".

The fact that Bill bothered to look for conflict of interests on any party suggests he's half way there. The beginning! What a wonderful place to start! But he was one dimensional in where he looked, and it deserves critique.

The removal of double standards, perhaps one of the the toughest things to do with any individual, gets you all the way there and I've yet to see individuals accomplish this without honesty, courage, hard work, and personal search, the latter that can be exhaustive. But I've seen them. I've met such individuals and they are the most real people you could meet. We know them by their works.

Here here Grub

That is hilarious!

Brain, as theoretically pure as your suggestions might sound, there is a universe full of reasons why all perspectives are somewhat warped or just don't make it past the typographer's knife.

The primary one being 'I know best', and I'm not trying to single you out with that statement.

It is a universal problem, one that is circumvented best by full disclosure.

And on that point I'd suggest Bill Tielman has been as frank as anyone, including Frank(sorry guy), as far as where his sympathies lay.

Afterall, he isn't purporting to be bringing you a hard news scoop. Instead it's opinion backed up by a some pretty good savvy on BC's political scene.

Now that's whether you think he's full of it or not.

I have absolutely no ploblem with your zeal to see journalism presented in an open and full manner.

That is exactly what most media tell you they deliver. We all have our own views on that.

commentor: Tieleman
posted: 1 Day Ago
Greetings all - some interesting comments.

"Regarding my politics, I've never hid in the least that I am an NDP supporter. But I don't work for the party or answer to it - for example, check out my stand against proportional representation, which the NDP supports strongly (and wrongly)".

Never will understand Tielman. Is he living in a safe ndp federal and provincial riding?
Is he buddys with some leader in the NDP and so has insider power?
Why is he content to condem a few million ndp voters in alberta, quebec etc to be political jerkoffs? (They might as well jerk off as vote ndp). And most of them know it and end up being "strategic liberals". How big is the hidden ndp, silenced by first past the post and showing up election after election as a federal liberal? nobody will ever know. And a ndp supporter is happy with that! Wow
Does Tieleman support the "supermajority" which makes 40 votes for one option worth 60 for another? 1.5 votes each for luddites and just one each for the majority? Or does tieleman support one person one vote?
I guess that if you dont support PR, you cannot really truely claim to support such an important democratic ideal as one person one vote.
Voting should not be a lottery but in Canada, it is. Lots of candidates are going to win because lots of voters voted "strategically" for the wrong guy. It should not be that you have to guess which 2 candidates will be the top 2 and then to make your vote matter, vote for your favorite of those 2.
It should not be poker. But it is.
Nobody should get a majority with 40% of the vote either but in canada, its common.

Let's not fire the writer. I don't have time, during my busy schedule to attempt what Peter ,who is paid to write his views, does.
I respect the views of anyone who can explain them to me..
Others want to respond, that's what makes a debate
Nothing wrong with a debate.
Say what you want to say.
Nobody will censor you on this site.