I guess I don't know how to read. I know the Conservative Govt. won, and yet we didn't win ??
I know I am not very deep, but I can read the newspapers.
The left is toast Murray, I am investing in Kayak rentals.

Nice to hear Murray's sunny view in a dark time, but here are 3 couple distaff observations.

1. Despite the most fertile circumstance it is likely to come across for decades, the NDP only raised its popular vote a couple of points over last time around, when it was only a little ahead of debacle. The 10 new seats mask the fact that, even when the alternatives are a disgraced Liberal and a sociopathic Con, few people see worth in the NDP. Some of that isn’t the Party’s fault, but some of it is, and I despair that it will get addressed in the face of Jack’s “big”, though thoroughly pyrrhic, victory.
2. We can no longer look down out noses at the Yanks and say, “We’d never elect someone like George Bush,” because we have. Maybe Murray's real politik considerations will come about, but we have skated ourselves onto thin ice. It hasn’t cracked yet, but it could. Germany, prior to the ascension of the National Socialists, had been one of the most liberal societies for over half a century – certainly, in an era of vast anti-semitism, Germany was one of the least repressive nations in its treatment of Jews. It didn’t take long to turn that around. Are we smarter than the Germans? Or for that matter, the Americans? We like to say we are nicer, but a lot of nice Americans voted for Bush. And now a lot of nice Canadians have voted for his like here too. Can't happen here because of our expressed values? Sure hope Murray's right.
3. One last herald of gathering darkness: Michael Ignatieff, the silver-tongued, apologist for both Gulf Wars, won his seat handily and is certainly in the running for the Liberal leadership. Murray doesn't think his media-savvy "charisma" could capture the Liberals? Again, sure hope Murray's right.
Should he win, between the Cons and the Liberals, Canadian kids will certainly be off killing brown kids in the Yanks’ next imperial adventure and, fair is fair, the brown kids will kill them back.
OK, comrades, back to work.

The NDP have traded the devil for the deep blue sea. The elements always win.

Murray Dobbin...:

Your article is so full of holes, I don't know where to begin. Lets begin with your first novel attempt to bash Paul Martin for a living. What are you going to do now? Bash the Greens as you've done? It looks like, but you should get your numbers straight, first. They took in less than 1.2 mil, but we've grown to expect your NDP lovin, biased steal and spend fudged allegations.

As for this country being left or right, you forgot moderate, those who are a bit of both, but, as you say, no one likes to commit political suicide. Thing is, that's what Paul Martin did the moment he became Prime Minister to form a government caught by the auditor general with adscam. I doubt that Chretien's retirement was coincidental.

The following comparisons of Harper and Martin... "Both are totally in the service of big business". True. "Both are committed to a radically decentralized Canada." False. "Both are unabashedly pro-US." False. "Both men were equally committed to accepting the US lead on foreign policy from the Iraq war, to missile defence to open disdain for multilateral organizations like the United Nations." False (but Paul did sneak us into Afganistan, IRAN related. You, of all people should have exploited this).

"Martin would never have even considered signing Kyoto were it not politically expedient to do so, as witnessed by his outright refusal to implement the historic agreement." False. He never had the chance. "And on tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, Martin as finance minister actually went far beyond anything Preston Manning, the Alliance Party or even Stephen Harper had called for." He dropped the highest corporate tax in the world from 24% in 1993 from 21% in 2006, still within the top 10 most taxed corp percentages in the world. Only a few southern continent nation's beat him on this count.

"As for the Liberals, Paul Martin will go down in history -- along with his personal pack of political thugs who won him the leadership and directed his government -- as the man who very nearly destroyed the "natural governing" party." It was Crutchin's cronies that was dirty. Martin and MP elects kept it alive.

While were on Paul, you wrote a scathing article over Paul's surplus's in December. Only an idiot finance minister would highball commodity values the way Con economists do.

I like your media molded view that Michael Ignatieff is the best the Libs got. I'm sure Ken Dryden or Ralph Gooddale would be much worse picks for your own bottom feeding future.

Your quote: "Stephen Harper only won, and barely won, because he pretended to be well farther to the left than he actually is". Hate to break it to you. There is no left in him.

Your quote: "One, the GST cut, will go through because it is a budget item and to defeat it would mean another election -- it just won't happen." You've been smoking rock, if you think the Cons will ever pass a money bill. Another election is precisely whats coming, likely this winter. The Libs and Quebec have a better chance of passing legislation than the Cons, dude.

As for the NDP, they have no opportunities and no power, other than what they can say in front of a microphone. Their best opportunity lies in running better candidates, especially in ridings that need it. And there are.

All in all, I've got you at 4 F's and a D out of the last 5. A third of the bloggers here could write better than you lately. I did appreciate your piece on P3's, but that was back in what, October? Leave your biased politics alone and get back to what made you good.

Dobbin, Dobbin, Dobbin; you have made a fundemental error, Canada isn't left wing, it's corrupt and it is the Liberals, with a large dash of Mulroney, have made us so. The last election was just a change of Mob bosses and hit men!

The last election was between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, there is not much distinction between the two. Layton's NDP were poor also rans.

What is Harper going to accomplish, not a hell of a lot - he can't, not with the numbers of MP's he has.

The only bright note in this whole dismal affair is that the BQ lost seats - and to the Conservatives as well!

Sorry, Murray. The Conservatives won a minority government. They won it because the Liberals deserved to be thrown out of office and the NDP just was not an option. The Left did not win.

I am delighted by one thing - the traitors in the Bloc now can't coast along fighting against Liberal corruption, because there are two federalist political parties with a good number of seats from Quebec.

If the NDP have any brains at all, they'll put Proportional Representation at the top of their bribe list. Otherwise they'll be squezed out of power indefinitely, because Canada is not a "left-wing" country, but a liberal capitalist democracy, and the NDP is more useful as a ginger group for the centralists than as a potential government.

as for Jim Harris and the Greens. I believe that Harris will have to resign. The problem is finding a viable replacement. The NDP raids on the Greens, plus our internal differences of opinion, make it difficult to see an obvious successor from the social-demoocratic wing of the Party. I'll be making some discreet inquiries myself.

It is obvious that in order for anyone to take the helm of Canadian politics - they have to move towards the centre because Canada is as diverse a nation as you can get. That is why Joe Clark sat as leader of the Progressive Conservatives - and which is why the "reform" party has had to go through a multitude of "christenings" before landing on the Tories and effectively dropping the concept of "progressive" from their limited vocabulary. The reason why Canadians are often left feeling that no one but the Liberals are fit to rule is precisely because they epitomize the "central" concept, and they offer the best compromise. This election just objectified one reality - the real split in Canada is not between East and West or between English and French - but it is between cosmopolitan urban centres (which are unambigulously UNconservative) and the less diversified hinterlands - of which the Prairies encompass. In reality, Harper is in a more difficult position now then he was before because those hard-knocks social conservatives will be highly disappointed at his lack of power in gov't with the largest number of NDPs we've had in a long time. This is also a wonderful opportunity for the Liberals to regroup with a dynamic leader to swoop in and "save" Canada from the incompetency of the rebranded Tories who have no support in Canada's largest and most influential cities - not to mention their lack of endearment with the First Nation people. This may turn out be more fun to watch then I first anticipated. The best part is going to be witnessing the disappointment in American dreams of Candadians having given birth to a Yankee love-child north of the border. The best laid plans of mice and conservatives oft go awry...

"I know I am not very deep" - understatement of the year from Ron Erwin.

The fact that faced with corruption from the Liberals, voters could only give the Conservatives a small minority government is telling. If the Conservatives had a "pulse" on the nation, you'd think they would have devasted the Liberals just like what happened to the Progressive Conservatives after Mulroney. The Conservatives have taken out "progressive" not just from their name, but also from their policies. Their Focus on the Family candidates scare the majority of Canadians. So, scary that I ended up voting Liberal just to block one. If Harper doesn't move his party to the left a bit, he has peaked politically. He has to encourage fiscal conservatives who know what a secular society means to run as candidates next time or his government will be toast.

I disagree - Harper was brought in as a moderate. Look at his platform - no Kyoto, free vote on SSM, tax cuts, deferral of capital gains, gauranteed wait times - including using facilities in the States, if need be.....

He ran beside what his is - a right-wing moderate. However, did have to duck and hide from Liberal smear!

Nice spin though!! We have a Conservative government in Ottawa, we have a pseudo-conservative government in Victoria!!

BCers do not like social conservatism - you are correct! However, they do support fiscal conservatism. The past 25 years we've seen Bennett, Zam and Campbell with some NDP sprinkled in!

Plus, things are good in BC - and with the olympics coming, expect them only to get better! Best - the cuts are over!!

Campbell's biggest challenge will be negotiations with the public service employees - which he was smart enough to let expire this year - which is nearly a full term away from the next election!!!!

Add in an angelic Carole Taylor running the public affairs, and you have a much nicer recipe than Campbell and Collins!

Watch the BC Libs dominate in 2009! Which brings me back to my original point - the left is a dying breed! If they had any chance to win, it would have been this year.

Also, while they did get a little luckier in the 3-way races, the NDP barely increased their popular vote in BC. This despite a terrible Liberal Leader.

The Tories still captured nearly 40%, and the Liberal support was primarily right of center support - W.Van, N.Van and Richmond.

Bye bye Socialism.

Nice piece by Dobbin. The analysis of the Canadian collective psyche is spot on.

The usual mouthbreathers respond above, too shallow to recognize that Canadians do not support the values being dumped on us from the south.

I find it amusing that the siren call "the left is toast" rises from those whose lifestyles' are a result of lefties and are envied around the world. I've got mine jack and I don't need to think about helping others.

Sorry little elliot, little ronnie, and the others typing away in your mothers' attics, the left is all of us. Like it or not.

Good read Murray and exactly the fate I wished upon someone who was bragging about how Alberta was going to be running the show after Monday.

Can't remember the fellow's name, but he implied darkly that if Alberta doesn't get its way we'd all hear about it.

I wished him the tiniest of Tory minorities and millions of Canadians obviously thought that was just what was needed.

As for the first two posters here, isn't it just wonderful that even fools eventually begin to realize that a minority government can't do anything unless it moderates its plans.

For me, not having Christian fundamentalists forcing their pre-evolutionary witchcraft into our school systems and courts is a major victory.

Now we get to watch with some glee for a year or so as some of the more vocal wingnuts in the Conservative Party become increasingly angry that their victory is but a paper win.

It's kind of fitting actually that a chartered accountant should lead a paper victory, I think.

Of course the other positive is we got rid of a corrupt Liberal government and the man who led the gutting of health care budgets in Canada and allowed his government to steal billions of (EI), dollars that should have gone to unemployed workers.

Dobbin suggests that Harper's election is "deeply offensive to Canadian values and traditions". What a crock! What he really means is deeply offensive to left-lib secular humanist values. A plurality elected the Tories, so Dobbin's rant is simply a thinly veiled slander against these voters, all Canadian electors, with "Canadian values and traditions".To quote Bruce Willis in "the Kid"--Waaah. Somebody call the Waaahmbulance.

I wonder how winning 17% of the popular vote and getting seats is a victory?

Maybe next time Millionaire Jack can form a government with 35 seats?

It would be refreshing to see the world depicted in more than the "right", the "left" and the "centre". People seem to stop thinking (surrendering to special interest groups) as soon as they fall in that trap. Dobbin falls right in. I proudly voted Green BTW and that was my "strategic" vote.

Murray Dobbin, I'm so glad you said this ...

and that's without even mentioning the sad story of his BC minions, Basi, Virk, and Basi.

Then you said ...

Paul Martin jr taught us everything we didn't want to believe about political ambition. Sheila Copps (with admirable restraint) explained in her book, "Worth Fighting For," what happened to valuable colleagues who got in his way. I'm glad he's out.

Now ... how about Ken Dryden as the new leader? He's strong, smart, caring, well-loved ... why not? Nobody has less smelly old baggage to drag into the contest. I'd like to hear other comments about Dryden's suitability.

.

Cut the rhetoric, Mary. The BC Liberal Party is in no way associated with the federal party of the same name.

And the provincial NDP is hardly lily-white. Remember Bingo-gate? Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? Glenn Clark in the accused box?

Selective memory. Lefties are so holy they only break the law for the good of all, right?

The long and short of it is that everybody lost and Canada has no government.

Whether this will be good, or bad, remains to be seen ? The scariest effect is the question, who will be the new Liberal leader?

All the names mentioned are multinational toadies, in favour of killing Canada with their "deep integration" racket to keep the bankrupt US economy and criminal ideology going with the squandering of Canada's resources.

Which means deeper into a colonial state and corporate dictatorship under the imaginary power of imaginary money, the Nirvana the so called "right" drools over.

The problem of Canada is that the majority have so called "left" dreams and ideas, but vote "right" and the party that's supposed to represent real Canadian hopes is strangled by some small group of "insider advisors", who couldn't advise a baby on the use of toilet paper. This past campaign was a good example of their work.

Whoever they are and what their platform really is ? As an NDP member, I have repeatedly asked the "leadership", both provincially and federally, on where they stand on criminal treaties like the NAFTA and the coming GATS ? No answers, because the truth would hurt the feelings our dear "foreign investors". By other name the bunch of goddamn pirates holding us for ramsom by pointing imaginary computer figures at us.

The inner circles are silent on the obvious, because it would hurt their dreams of "moving to the centre". In other words, to the appeasement of criminals.

About the same situation as in the USA, where the Democrats are being strangled by their own group of "insider advisors".

Now let's hear the illuminati coming back with
sarcasm about "you lefties".............

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

WM: Basi & Virk were Paul Martin's top Liberal organizers for his leadership campaign. Their day jobs were as BC ministerial aides to Finance and Transportation.

You make it easy to see how effective the media silence has been, in making it difficult for the public to follow this sad affair. I wonder if the Basi Boys worked on the 23 January electoral campaign?

Or, can you WM explain for us how the amazing Nina Grewal managed to get re-elected?

No, the Conservatives won Ron, but with less than 36 percent of the vote it's hardly a convincing win.

I find it funny that Harper had to refashion himself as a centre-right Liberal to (barely) win the election. What's funnier is Cons wanted power so bad that they were willing to overlook it.

dolphin:

Depends which definition of "plurality" you choose. From my perspective, a plurality of voters did NOT vote for Conservative values.

Fiat Lux:

Whether this will be good, or bad, remains to be seen ?

I'll disagree insofar as Canada DOES have a government. IMHO, fortunately not the kind of majority, dictatorship-for-five-years, kind of government we're used to in this country.

I think it would be useful if, for several decades now, we continue to elect minority governments which require parties to COOPERATE.

How wonderful for the NDP to actually have influence. Ditto the Bloc. And if the NDP or Bloc demands appear to radical, who knows, the Liberals and the Conservatives may temporarily have to form a grand coalition. This may well be the best of times!

Despite the tantrum throwing insistance of the braunshirts above, this above quote is about the essence of it, in a generally good analysis by Murray Dobbin I think. It was and remains a complex reality out there, within the crippling limitations of FPTP capitalist democracy, Canadians had to traverse in order to achieve what emerged as the "national objective/will" I think. Clearly there was a desire to punish the Liberals, and the Conservatives were, how e're unfortunately, seen as the best instrument with which to do that, especially the one with the "sanitized" commitments that shouwed up for the election. Whilst yet, given its history of wingnut extremism, not giving it too much control over the national treasure-, still even within the complexities of that strategical objective, managing to achieve an increase in the seat share going to the at least "perceived" more "progressive" NDP. (Speaking Anglo-Canada here. Quebec is its own separate story, I think. No pun intended. :-)

All of which "national will" was achieved rather adroitly, even if more by accident than design. A risky way of doing it, but achieved nonetheless.

That said, and while formally there is a very limited mandate actually given to the Conservatives, I am less certain that they will not find enough support amongst the right wing Liberal fraction, to be rather more dangerous than Dobbin might wish to think and read in the tea leaves. Which awaits real future development and confirmation, for sure.

Clearly though, as the Cons point out here, the NDP remains in a still weak, even if increased position within parliament, and I at least am less certain of the strength of their principles (ideological view) and ability/willingness to "defend the nation" against an aggressive right onslaught, especially one as may find more and less subtle support coming out of Washington. They are rather too much disposed to "deal making" , retreat and fatal compromises, under pressure and especially from a highly motivated and aggressive political right and corporate media, such as we have seen much example of in B.C..

Anyway, there too, the public and we shall have to see. Just don't be surprised, I suggest.

Continued next post...

From previous post...

And finally, I see that division within the Liberal party as a phenomena that is a little more threatening than Murray is inclined to see in it himself. There is much internal hostility and rancor there, involving less personality and more "ideology", always more dangerous a phenomena, with much of the leading lights of the so-called Liberal Left having already been driven out or marginalized by Martin and the right-, even after the defeat of Martin is still of "a mood" and in the ascendancy within the party and ruling class ideology throught capitalism everywhere. At least there is no early sign to here that it has been greatly weakened.

Anyway, I suggest, it is much that occurs there within the Liberal Party over the next while that is going to determine the actual relationship that emerges between a potentially more right wing sympathetic Liberal leadership, and the doubtless still present if subterranean extremist Conservative desire to get on with the "neocon" programme agenda quoted at the lead to this post, and more, regardless of their minority position, especially if, as in BC, there emerged the possibility of a de facto "alliance of conveniece" between the two main parties of corporate capitalism: To continue the dismantling of the "social-capitalist" state, and deep integration with The Empire . To suggest it is outside the realm of possibility or even desire of the political players involved is, I think, naive in the extreme.

It may well be something we might not want to even contemplate, for the discomfort level it creates, or raise for fear they have not thought of it yet themselves, and that we might be actually putting ideas into their heads, which is again unlikely. It is out there as one of the possibilities, which if brought into play, could keep the rightist and corporatist agenda moving forward nonetheless.

It is going to take more than one piddly-ass election, for sure, to defeat this neoconservative direction of capitalist development, and the forces driving it forward.

BC Mary:

Somewhere on these Tyee forums I opined that Stockwell Day has to be the most moronic politician in Canada and that those who voted for him have to be the stupidest electors in the country.

I stick to that conclusion. However, in light of Grewal-gate, the title of second-stupidest voters has to go to those who would cast a ballot for Grewal.

So called "Working Man",

Big business bought the BCLiberal Party for Campbell, when they couldn't hold up the totally corrupt Socred crooks any longer.

This means that the precedents of the present Campbell government go back to the days of Wacky Bennett and the Socreds' long string of ministerial scandals, with forced resignations and even prison terms. Like Wacky's Minister of Forests by the name of Sommers, who, as a good "free enterpriser", was selling tree farm licences and so on and on. How about Flying Phil's escapades, or Nielson credit card affair, or Jack Whatshisname who pocketed the proceeds from the switching his first class airline tickets and pocketing the profits, etc. etc.

How about Bennett junior as accused in the dock , or Vander Zalm? And not over some chickenfeed cabin deck either.

So watch those stones you're throwing around in the glasshouse in your ideologically induced frenzy.

Ed Deak,

I get really annoyed when authors starting telling me what are “Canadian values” The current definition being lauded about is only about 35 years old and was manufactured and pushed on people by the government and media in order to replace the previous set of values based on loyalty to the British empire and the Commonwealth. I certainly doubt that the values being construed here represent mine and I am a proud Canadian and I know that I am not alone.

The current set is pure social engineering that has been pushed on us by social “elites” who actually did not create the values that are refereed to. Did Toronto, Ottawa or Montréal create the base, which these values were hung on? No, the social services that our current “Canadian values” are hung on came from rural Saskatchewan. The same people that are looked down on by the urban elites that benefit from those ideas.

If you want the real Canadian values, I suggest that you look at the rural landscape. I expect that real Canadian values are neither truly left or right, but a blend of the two. Harper is a fast learner and if given the opportunity will be able to present a mix of left and right that will appeal to “real Canadians”.

But I think we have a new word coming to add to our peculiar version of English: Harpmongering.

<> First-past-the-post thinking seems to have contaminated a lot of minds.

The Conservatives received only 6% more of the popular vote than 2004, and this constitutes a swing to the right ??? About 2/3 of the population voted for left/centre parties, yet the country has "embraced" Conservatism ?? Get a grip everyone.

There was no deeper sentiment going on than the non hard-core voters being mad at the Liberals. C support was falling after the RCMP investigation anger wore off, and given another week or two it likely would have been a dead heat. Would that have meant another big "shift" in Canadian sentiment ? ridiculous.

The result was a fluke of the FPTP system. C support went UP in BC, but they got 5 fewer seats ! a mild redistribution of the same votes could have resulted in a Liberal minority government. What difference would that have signified about the Canadian psyche ? Nothing

Liberal support dropped a little bit due to anger from Gomery and the income trust leaks. Most of this little bit of support went to the Conservatives, some to the NDP. that's about it.

all this tea-leave reading nonsense really can be maddening.

Poor old Non-Working Man, unable to make sense out of the sacking of his crime-ridden Liberal party and the bare minority Canadians handicapped his next favorite party(Conservatives),with, reverts to wishful thinking abour provincial politics.

Talk about hiding from reality.

Back to work you slacker.

Mabellbc, may I suggest you expend a tiny bit of cash and buy a dictionary. Look up the word minority.

Until you've done that, please don't make statements that bring your intellect so out into the open.

Ken Dryden

while no great fan of the Liberals under Martin, that could change with Ken Dryden at the helm, providing of course that he keeps the values, intelligence, perception, and patience that he has displayed so far. Naturally this could all be beaten out of him if he decides to run (he won't).

He isn't a life-long politician with a Rolodex full of favours to call up. SO, a nice thought, but it won't happen.

but it would be interesting to be wrong...

All the names mentioned are multinational toadies, in favour of killing Canada with their "deep integration" racket to keep the bankrupt US economy and criminal ideology going with the squandering of Canada's resources." Fait Lux.

There is some subtle difference in our view of the outcome of this election Fait, but fundamentally I agree with your analysis. The threat remains, and the extreme right is still in the ascendancy.

But especially astute, especially coming from an NDPer, is this quote: "The problem of Canada is that the majority have so called "left" dreams and ideas, but vote "right" and the party that's supposed to represent real Canadian hopes is strangled by some small group of "insider advisors", who couldn't advise a baby on the use of toilet paper."

Amen, brother.

In the end, I am convinced, the NDP itself has to either go through its own house cleaning process, to sweep from "control" such compromised dust bunny "small group of insider advisors", or be bypassed by a newer and more "left-aggressive" development that has the ideas, the analysis and the will capable of standing up to and besting this neocon tendency within capitalism and the nation.

And the clock is ticking.

Did Steven Harper pretend to be farther left than he actually is or has he really become a moderate?

The Conservatives claim that they will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on childcare. When Harper sat as a Reform MP he gleefully proclaimed ” Let me start with the positive side...Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. The family allowance program has been eliminated...” The Conservative’s “Choice in Childcare” policy is eerily similar to our old family allowance program. Has Harper's ideology changed?

What about Medicare? Harper, at the Conservative leadership debate, said "I know this is a dangerous subject. My advisors say don't talk about it, but the fact is sometimes provinces have allowed in the past few years, they've brought in private services covered by public health insurance... Why do I care and why do we care as a federal government how they're managed?" Does having a wait list policy mean that Harper now cares?

As vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition Harper made the following statement to the Council for National Policy. "The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.” Does Harper now respect the provinces, Medicare, women, and a whole bunch of other things?

Harper's article, “Rediscovering The Right Agenda”, outlined how social and economic conservatives must unite. He advocated a move toward Burkean values saying, “In particular, Canadian conservatives need to rediscover the virtues of Burkean conservatism as a key component of that balance.” Edmond Burke, a British Member of Parliament who lived over 200 years ago, believed that: "Political equality is against nature. Social equality is against nature. Economic equality is against nature. The idea of equality is subversive of order". Will a Burkean philosophy apply when it comes time to work with the provinces on fiscal imbalance? Will one province be more equal than another, or has "moderate" Harper given up on the Burkean school of thought?

As for cleaning up government and reigning in lobbyists, Harper once called third party spending restrictions a "gag law" and praised the National Citizens Coalition for appealing political spending restricitions. I wonder if NCC members are at all concerned with Harper's, new, moderate platform?

If Harper has changed his ideology when will it shift again? My guess, with a majority government.

In the hinterland riding where I live, Cariboo-Prince George, the results were:

Conservative 44.95%
Liberal 24.06%
NDP 23.29%
Green 5.53%
etc.

i.e. not solidly Conservative; proportional rep would have given us very different results.

Quesnel Cariboo Observer's Jan. 22 editorial identified Bev Collins of the Canadian Action Party as the clear winner of the last public election forum. She had passion, numbers, and wasn't afraid to attack NAFTA. (But she only got .64%, trailing the Christian Heritage Party candidate who got 1.16%).

I agree with Fiat Lux abt the problem of NDP inside advisors being so out of touch. They also seem to have forgotten how many of their voters went over to the Reforrrrrm Party under Preston Manning, and have no ideas about how to win them back.

Colin, if Stephen Harper is a "fast learner" as you state, why is he still hanging around with such a tub of hosers?

Sorry, but it wasn't Canada's social elite who cut our ties to the British Empire or the second tier of power it enjoyed by propping up of the old Commonwealth farce.

Put the blame where it belongs, on the sun that set so appropriately many long years ago.

You seem to have evolved from being pyschologically tied to that old racist regime to now wanting to bed down with good-ol' Texas cowboys.

Odd, isn't it, that both of them are the primary instigators in the current regime change fiascos now playing nightly on the worlds TV screens.

And you think you have a read on Canadian values? Ha!

BC Mary;
How did Nina win ? She is Indo Canadian and she lives in Surrey.

Steven Harper and The Conservative Party won the election. The polls were right on 36% Con 30% Lib. I won't acknowledge the % of the fringe parties.
Over 1/3 of Canadians voted for the victors.
Apparently this gets you into power.
They will do this
1. introduce an ethics package that will be
passe.
2. Reduce the GST
3. Give $1,200.00 per year for each child under
six years old to mothers to help pay for
childcare
4. Enact minimum sentences for criminals.
5. Appoint a Supreme Court Judge.
6. Start building the McKenzie Valley pipeline.
7. Lift ban on offshore drilling.
8. Lift dark cloud over Quebec.
I could go on, but I am sure I have upset wimpy liberals enough for now.

Anyone remember this press release from the Conservatives last summer (note the word 'demand')?

======================
http://www.scottreid.ca/06-16-2005.html

June 16, 2005

Conservatives Demand Citizen-Driven Electoral Reform

Ottawa - MP Scott Reid, the Conservative Party Critic for Democratic
Reform, presented the Conservative Party Minority Report on Electoral
Reform to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs today.
The Report, crafted as a response to the Committee's Report on Electoral
Reform prescribing a politician-led process, laid out the preferred
Conservative option for citizen-driven reform....
===================

If they're serious about keeping promises about accountability, they should be working with the NDP (and maybe Andre Arthur for good measure) to get this citizen-led process underway. If they were demanding this process, how can they now deny themselves?

As a "wimpy liberal" and rancher, I , like all ranchers with a bit of brains, am doing my best to make it sure that my animals, including the chicken are well fed and protected, because happy animals are better producers.

When I was an employer, I made it sure that my crews had the best conditions, were well paid and looked after, because I knew, from my own experience, that happy workers are the best producers.

I had all my employees, even the apprentices, involved in all major decisions, the buying of equipment, the bidding on large contracts, etc.

Then I told them what the job was and got out of their way and they worked their butts off, happily and satisfied, because they knew that their work, ingenuity, creativity and production was well rewarded and appreciated. Some fools would call this "featherbedding", I called it good business.

Now, what I see in our present industrial world are companies and managers who are going out of their way to screw and mistreat their workers, threataning them with outsourcing, treat them like dirt, even in union systems, rubbing their hands with glee when they can steal two bits from their employees' pockets.

The same applies to our dear "social conservatives" who advocate the turning of humanity into starving pigs, with some ruling class throwing a bit of food to them now and then, so they can watch them scrambling and fighting each other for crumbs, calling it "efficiency".

In other words, our "social conservatives", many seem to applaud on this list, are the epitome of stupidity, that can only lead to big troubles down the line. You can stretch an elastic band only so far, before it breaks and the breaking point, all over the world, is nearing by the day.

Ed Deak.

Good article, Mr Dobbin.

Another major silver lining is that this group by actually being in gov't will have the healing light of day shone on them. That light will cause most of them to suffer sun stroke.

Another silver lining...
They've hitched their star to GB's wagon across the border. GB's administration is in huge trouble. Americans are awakening to the fact that their gov't is enacting policy to make them a third world. Elections in the fall will probably result in a Democrat congress. Before then, Republicans hoping to hang onto their seats have to at least act outraged at the corruption scandals and call for accountability. This will prove difficult for Harper etal to dance the tango with them.
They are planning on eliminating the CBC. As per their cult dictate. This will not win them friends in Western Canada, never mind the rest of Canada. Tell me, if they do that, who will profit from the national treasure that is ours in the form of valuable archives? Those archives are the history of our nation and worth a lot of money.

They also better hope the economy doesn't worsen. As it can't fail to considering our assets have almost all been liquidated. And, of course, families getting their little child care tax credit will by then realize their other taxes have risen.

Neo-conservatism is on it's way out.

Allan
The proof will be in the pudding and Harper has to work with what he has, as does every party. Having watched and listened to some of the internal workings of the NDP, each party has it’s closet full of skeletons, wingnuts, decent folks and shining stars. In fact most people that could oversee their parties internal politics would not be thrilled by the infighting.

I was venting my frustrations about having other people tell me what my values should be, everyone here has the right to decide where their values lay, there is no real monolithic “Canadian values” as Canada does not really look or work like a traditional country.

Actually Cdn values are whatever I say they are. And since you're all unbelieving philistines I've decided to call upon a god or two to smite you all verily until you all cheer up.

I liked Dobbin's article but then I would say that wouldn't I?

Cons gained, NDP gained, Libs didn't lose as much as they thought they would, the Bloc lost and the Greens lost.

The only one I feel bad about is the Greens. Maybe they'll survive and maybe they won't. I doubt there'd still be an NDP if we had never elected anyone election after election.

Look guys, the only thing Harper can pass is mom and apple pie legislation. No one will agree to anything else. A few money bills will pass because the gov't has to function and no one wants another election right away. But the course of the Cdn political ship is barely at all going to change course so no worries here.

Working Man writes:

Selective memory. Lefties are so holy they only break the law for the good of all, right?

I believe the main difference between Clark in the accused box in Vancouver and Premier Campbell in the accused box in Hawaii was that Clark was found innocent....

notice that wally-boy and allan always wait until others have given their opinions of an article before they 'form' their own. 'the left is all of us': classic case of denial. wake up man.

You can have your values. That is the beauty of a pluristic society. It is when you do not allow others theirs that there is a problem. And, so, I agree we are not monolithic.

Who many call 'left-wing' do not seek to limit the rights of others, but the same can not be said of those some would call 'right-wing'.

The CBC is a good example. We all have priorities for where our taxes go, so not agreeing with CBC does not give one the right to take it away. And, I do not agree that the CBC is 'left' because it does represent the values of waht the majority self-identify and self state. What seems to gall neo-conservtives about 'Canadian values', is that they are not collectively neo-conservative. More importantly, even if it were, for the sake of argument, the 'left' isn't seeking to eliminate the voice of the 'right' which has become the private media. It does seek to reveal it for what it is, however.

CBC is not 'left', but it definitely is not neo-conservative and it dares to investigate and shine a light on neo-conservatism. A 'terrible crime' if one is neo-conservative, it seems and the same one that NPR found itself 'guilty' of doing. The neo-con they put in there is now in trouble. So...to me, it is about limiting the rights of other people that the line must be drawn.

Even many 'right-wing' voters would not vote that way if they knew the fraud being perpetuated on them.

...pluralistic

This whole right vs left, us vs Ron and WM is a waste of time. They need to be boisterous so that they can justify rape, murder and theft. Rape of the earth, murder of those who cannot defend themselves and theft of resources for their own wealth. This could have been such a peaceful place, with maybe a billion or 2 humans working in harmony, planning a sustainable future. But because of people like you, people who actually have money, influence and power, we are all going to pay the ultimate price with our future. That is why you are selfish, stupid and soon to be alone. As in the real world, you know, outside where you go to buy your fast food, people sense your hostility and avoid you. If they haven't already, your families will also ignore you. The only way Ron and Working Man could possibly look dumber, is if no one paid attention to them.

Building bridges has always been a better solution than setting up firewalls. If Harpo is to be believed then the appearance is that he has tempered some of his ideals with a more socially concerned attitude. In other words, he's coming on side with the left. Perhaps Harpo may morph back into the monster Ron et al fantasize about. But it is more likely that the socially concerned have scored a politcal coup, with the right wondering just what it is that they are all about.

Love the rhetoric. It it weren't so pathetic I would laugh. Perhaps you people should look into how to win elections. Nah, can't do that, can you? That would mean accepting responsibility for something, wouldn't it?

Going through some or Rafe Mair's old columns, I came across this one:

http://www.rafeonline.com/archive/word/20000507.shtml

Pretty much sums the holier than thou group up.

We win lots of elections. In fact, in BC, Alta, Sask and Man the NDP has won more elections than the Libs in the past 50 years.

Remember when I said you're being repetitive? Stop it and move on to something else.

Fairly decent, Mr. Dobbin, but I think you're much too hard on Martin, (do you think an honest, candid straight-forward person could ever make it to the head of any government?--except maybe Evo Morales?)--and the Law of Unintended Consequences could get us Ignatieff for P.M., eh.

The comments on this site are hilarious. Canadian voters have shown a propensity for electing governments that present themselves as moderate (notwithstanding they may not be). They rarely stray from the centre.

Meanwhile, it's so funny to hear lefties crow about "how well" the NDP has done. They got 17.5% of the vote in 2005. Congratulations NDP, you're now back up to the same support level you got in 1965.

So not only Moses wandered in the desert for decades.

Oops I mean 2006.

Martin, the Libs and Cons both failed to reach their previous highs this election.

Now go back to your Archie comics and let the grown-ups talk.

For anyone who thinks this is a good article, think again.

Seats PR # of votes pop vote
Cons: 124 40.3 5,370,903 36.3
Bloc: 51 16.6 1,552,043 10.5
Greens: 0 0 665,940 4.5
Libs: 103 33.4 4,477,217 30.2
Ind: 1 1 77,438 0.5
NDP: 29 9.4 2,590,808 17.5

Parties bring home each vote worth $1.75

Cons: $ 9,399,080.20
Bloc: $ 2,716,075.20
Greens: $ 1,165,395.00
NDP: $ 4,533,914.00
Libs: $ 7,835,129.70
Ind: $ 135,516.50

Under current election laws, independents aren’t entitled to this money. Our tax dollars are to the tune of $21,230,195.60 to these parties. This is to keep us protected from lobbyists. To bad it doesn’t work.

Under current election laws, donation disclosure is now under a veil, thanks to the National Citizens Coalition, an organization that Stephen Harper was once vice president of, (I think even president for 6 months) that took religious organizations donation rights to be kept a secret under constitutional grounds for fear of discrimination. the NCC won in Calgary in a Federal court in 2004, dramatically weakening our national ability to ferret lobby interests making campaign donations.

This information indicates how little Murray Dobbin knows about what he's saying. To quote him, "it (the Green Party) seems to have squandered the nearly $1.7 million it received under new election financing rules. Look for the knives coming out for Harris in the leadership convention later this year. If Harper manages to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy through which parties get $1.75 per vote, per year, as he promised, it could eliminate the Green Party entirely.

This is the second time Murray has fudged these numbers to promote his own bias. He had to have been corrected the first time, leading me to think that this second time is just a biased lie. If Harper manages to get rid of taxpayer subsidies... and nearly 9.4 million of Con party money? Hello!!! Must be nice to have 30,000 to spend on each riding, not counting oil and church cheques.

dj2's quote says it best:

As for cleaning up government and reigning in lobbyists, Harper once called third party spending restrictions a "gag law" and praised the National Citizens Coalition for appealing political spending restrictions. I wonder if NCC members are at all concerned with Harper's, new, moderate platform?

This could have been your story, Murray. Get back to the issues and leave your poorly reasearched, biased BS at home.

The writer may use whatever logic he wants to spin out his conclusion of the "left" being the winner, but I disagree.

I think the winner in this election is Canada simply because the conservatives picked up 10 seats in Quebec. This shows how weak support is for Quebec sovereignty and how federalists Quebecers want the same thing as Albertans - a voice in Ottawa.

Some poster here once said that Stephen Harper is not a nation builder. Well, the election outcome proves that poster wrong.

Sources from above post can be seen at:
http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

brain, I don't get your point. The gist of the article is that Martin ran from the left and Harper moved towards the Liberals in order to get elected.

He's saying that if the two of them had campaigned from the right then it would mean Canada has shifted right, but they didn't.

I just don't see the big to-do over the disagreement between you and Dobbin over Green party moneys.

I love how the left wing always wins. You could be dead last in every category, yet you are always the big winner. It does fit right in with your everybody is a winner philosophy so it doesn't surprise me that much. Will you be handing out participation ribbons?

So far the right wing has won a municipal (Vancouver), provincial, and federal election in the last year, yet they are labeled the losers. You guys are either delusional or eternally optimistic. I would side with delusional.

JIm, you're back, been about 6 months hasn't it?

I'll try to explain it in a nutshell. When you go from 2 seats to over 30 provincially that's a good thing. You may not have won but you've achieved a good result.

When you go from 19 to 29 federally you have also achieved a higher number than you had the time before.

That's kind of the thing we lefties like to see, doing better is better than doing worse. You disagree?

The Libs lost seats yet many believe they have in fact achieved an excellent result. Would you call them delusional? I wouldn't.

The Cons failed to win a majority gov't. Should they be dancing in the streets because they got the most seats even though they can't do much? I hope all Cons are in their happy place but don't tell me 125 seats out of 308 is some huge victory. You did better than the time before, that's all.

Really? Federally, the tally is ZERO

In BC, the tally is THREE.

As for the prairie NDP parties, I would gladly vote for any of them because they evolved their platforms and affliations to a modern, non-dogmatic formula that can very effectively balance social justice, private property and economic growth. Unfortunately, both the BC and federal NDP parties have not been able to make this leap and remain lap-dogs for the BC Fed and the CLC respectively.

So there is definately a learning curve here, one lost of Jim Sincliar and Millionaire Jack but not, interestingly, on Carole James.

Sorry this is off topic but I couldn't figure out where to post this as it is a minor bugbear that I have had for a while and it happens in a variety of discussions. I have noted a tendency among some people to refer to Harper and his cohorts using German or partly German terms: two examples being "Herr Harper" and "braunshirts." I am trying to decide if this is merely hyperbole. What is an author attempting to achieve with the use of German in this context? Is this an effort to make an emotional appeal through the connection in the minds of many people between German words and extreme right wing ideology? Is this an implied comparison of Harper to a specific German leader? The current German Chancellor is Angela Merkel, perhaps "Frau Harper" would convey the concept or is it merely being polite and correct addressing a Canadian politician formally using German? Why such a selective sprinkling of foreign titles? I wonder why I didn't read anything about "Doktor Fry" running against "Signor Robinson" or some musings on former Alliance leader "Generalissimo Day." Would it be appropriate to refer to Jack Layton as "Layton Zhuxi" (Chairman Layton) or "Tovarisch Layton" (Comrade Layton)? Perhaps the NDP Youth could be referred to as the "Komsomol" and the Young Conservatives could be called the "Harperjugend." The fact that Harper's name starts with an H does lend itself to easy interchange with historically familiar phrases, but does "Heil Harper" truly convey anything besides an effort to further demonize a guy whose politics the majority of Canadians disagree with?

Wow! It seems the expression of any opinion above just gets plain nasty. The rhetoric seems to be a pox on both 'liberals and conservatives' with vitriol reserved for the NDP. Just what would create a little consensus anyway? With the two main parties the choice seems to have been between the 'plain greed and thievery party' and some scary imagined 'bogey party' from somewhere in the ROC. For those who compare the sins of Campbell/liberals and Clark/NDP isn't it just amazing what the media can do to make one sin look soooooo innocent and another look sooooo bad? At least the deck never threatened anyone's life and limb. In the scheme of things and media duplicity Clark got 'the shaft' while Campbell got a 'pass go' card and kept his job. Hummmm! Read the article in The Republic archives entitled 'Made Man' sometime last fall

I also remind you, Burgess, that Gabelman and Stupich and conveniently forgotten by the left.

Gee, does that mean more advocacy for more of everything for everybody?

WM HUH? What's your point?

"You guys are either delusional or eternally optimistic. I would side with delusional."

You're probably right. It's the neo-con attitude that growth can continue unchecked forever that's both eternally optimistic AND delusional.

Really? Federally, the tally is ZERO

Same tally as the Libs in Alta.

And the Lib tally is only two.

If we move to Sask the disparity is even worse with the NDP winning way more elections. Liberal success provincially is not that noticable in Manitoba either. Even in Ontario the provincial Libs have not exactly won that many elections.

And how old a party are they? 139 years? How much money have they spent? More than anybody else.

So why bother repeating the same "the NDP can't win elections" every 2nd or 3rd message for 9 months?

Shall I post, "we win more than the Libs" after every such post?

What would be the point of me posting constantly for 9 months the lack of Liberal electoral success for 50 years in the 4 western provinces?

Would I get some weird thrill out of chanting? Sure, if I was 14.

Federally, the Libs have had their best showing in BC in decades yet they came in third, in Alberta their last MP, landslide Annie lost her seat. Have you seen me post anything on the lack of federal Liberal success out this way? No, I don't care and see no point in stating the obvious ad infinitum.

Surely you must have other issues, I doubt you have a PhD in studying the lack of NDP success federally.

Sorry but I'm still laughing over Heil Harpo!

I agree...as well as those Highly Calculated Intended Consequences masquerading as Unintended ones.

This includes the very intended erosion of our strong central government and it's derelict lack of oversight over the provinces allowing our provincial governments free rein to change the face (and body) of this country, domino by domino. There are many fronts in need of guarding...fronts that Harper can always tenderly nudge in a certain direction.

I was reading a piece by Daniel Ellsberg lately, he warns Americans not to count Bush out even if he appears to be on the ropes right now. With the Democrats lacking courageous, out-spoken leadership, as we are here, events are always open to manipulation...and in the art of artifice the neo-cons truly shine.

Meanwhile, the left dilly-dallies (as we saw in this election), shuffles feet, coyly compromises in ways that would make Scarlet O'Hara blush...naively believing that tomorrow is always another day...well, sorry Scarlet, but in these strange days it just ain't necessarily so...

I like Harperjugend, it just flows nicely. A few months ago some American friends and I were discussing US policy in German or semi-German terms, like Natural Resource Raum and the BushPrinzip. It is all in good fun, but I don't believe it is necessary in a political discussion.

Murray Dobbin's analysis may be too sanguine. Harper’s chances for building on this minority are nowhere nearly as bleak as the article implies.

Harper is free to move ahead with a range of programs that will appeal to many different interest groups in the short run. Mostly without incurring much risk of alienating other voters and almost no danger of initiating an election in the short to medium term. Further, by carefully picking his programs and moving them ahead as quickly as possible he can co-opt significant blocks of voters who will (no matter how they voted in 2006) consider supporting the Cons when the next election is eventually triggered. By addressing the narrow concerns of a wide range of special interests he will, in effect, be creating a kind of coalition that may very well support him the next time we go to the polls.
He can start with something as simple as arming border guards. By reversing the previous government's decision on that issue he will mollify not only border guards and their families (all across Canada) but he will be responding to a law-and-order issue and dealing with a current concern (after yesterday's chase and arrest at the border) in a seemingly decisive way. Of course, he won't acknowledge these as special interests - from his point of view he'll be responding to the needs of ordinary Canadians.

He’ll also move on other issues in the party platform that will impact voters directly: The new ‘family allowance’ payments for children under 6; the 1% reduction in the GST; the tax credit for family sports and recreation expenses. Justice issues are a slam-dunk since both the NDP and the Liberals already caved to Harper’s point of view during the campaign.

Without creating much controversy, he can begin to be seen as making a positive difference to a lot of Canadians lives. No doubt he’ll pander to gun owners by axing the gun registry and use the savings to help pay for the goodies he’s doling out in increased spending. He’ll begin to allocate the surplus in the Employment Insurance fund to pay for programs and he’ll make the changes he’s promised to the capital gains tax to appease Bay Street. He’ll consult like a madman with the Provinces and promise to share all kinds of tax points with them as he responds to the needs of the ‘fiscal imbalance’. He’ll slash federal spending on Health and Welfare measures that can be administered within the provincial sphere and increase defence spending but make it palatable by spreading facilities out all across the country. Even the beginnings of an elected Senate (though not the holy grail of a 'Triple- E' one) is within his reach.

I can’t see much in these measures that would give the opposition enough leverage to force an election. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that successful completion of these programs and a few others would make Harper pretty popular if an early election is in store. In the longer run, even his promise of instituting a fixed date for elections can be spun in his favour. If I were Harper I’d set the date for the next Federal election right now – then if there is an earlier vote the optics will put the blame directly on the opposition.

I don’t think he’ll have much trouble with his caucus either. I think he knows exactly how he’s going to handle the next few months and I think he’s going to avoid doing anything that will alienate any significant group of voters – his party bought into this program after the 2004 election. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t have an agenda just that he’s much too committed to that agenda to risk it by doing anything foolish.

The ones with the real problems are the Liberals and the New Democrats. Without significant changes to the way we elect the House of Commons those two parties may well have to consider some kind of formal alliance if they are to stand any chance of regaining power anytime soon. Harper has the beginnings of a working majority and he may well be smart and committed enough to turn it into a dynasty.

"The Left" is still looking for its backbone, Lynn. They've been retreating for so long, it has forgotten how to organize and advance. It's the part we have all got to get beyond. Elections, contrary to social dem opinion, in my view, is not the be all and end all of it.

Organzing folks, getting them in self-defence motion and building up a new base,from the ground up, in the working class, amongst women and youth is the real starting point. If that gets done, the damned election thing will take care of itself in time.

Always good to read ya, sister.

The Provincial Liberal tally only two? Get real man, the BC Liberals are the modern incarnation of the Social Credit. Even the faces are the same.

Now, Frankie, really little closer.I know actually reading what your are slaming gets your lips a little tired but try to.

The liberal parties in all provinces have NO AFFILIATION with the federal party. It is comparing apples to oranges.

Now read what I said about the prairie NDP parties.

Hope your lips ain't to tired, Frank

Frank:
This might help. Its taken from this website: http://morefreedom.org/news/

Let me know if its sounds remotely similar to the Cons "hidden agenda", and keep in mind that this is all from the National Citizens Coalition (NCC).

We call our vision "The Agenda for Canada".

The Agenda for Canada addresses these key issues

Financial Accountability

Canada needs to cut big government spending, find innovative ways to get a better return on our health-care investments, and allow Canadians to keep more of the money they earn.

Representative Accountability

The scandals must stop. Canadians need to push for a democratically elected senate, a strong military, a privatized CBC and more direct democracy.

Individual Freedoms and Responsibility
Canada needs to entrench property rights, repeal the gag law and end the Wheat Board monopoly. Canada needs to restore rights to union workers, end CRTC censorship and restore language rights to English speaking Quebeckers.

If Canada’s political leaders will not promote a new vision for Canada, then the NCC will. But we need your help!

Have a read through our Agenda for Canada and let us know what you think. Or, better yet, help us fund an ad campaign that will make the Agenda for Canada part of the national debate.

We need to let Canadians know that there is another option to the failed big government solutions of the past.

Your generous contribution to this campaign can make the Agenda for Canada a reality. With your support we can print more Agenda for Canada booklets, print newspaper ads, run radio commercials and use the internet to get the message out.

Now more than ever Canada needs a positive vision. The NCC’s Agenda for Canada is that vision. Help us get the message out."

Keep in mind, Frank that the NCC was the same organization that put the legal veil over campaign contributers in 04' to hide oil and church cheques, the same organization that tried, although unsuccessfully to reppeal the "gag" law, the same organization that Harper controlled from 97 to 01, and it gets even more interesting. Any past president of this organization still has present powers.

Below, is a cutout from Harper's profile on CBC with his life back in 97'

"Harper took the helm of the National Citizens Coalition. There he spoke out in defence of taxpayers' rights, penned articles that called official bilingualism "the god that failed" and criticized federal politicians over the "appeasement" of Quebec separatists, and fought limits on third-party election campaign spending."

Does Harper sound moderate to you? The only defence Dobbin has with his article is that he, like most other journalists, are truly unaware of Harpers agenda. In other words, he just doesn't know. But to smear Martin, a man who knowingly took leadership during what was going to be a bad scandal... I think the history books will remember Martin moreso for 8 surplus's and leading the Lib ship through a maze of iceburgs to survive and defeat this bozo from Alta., cause we really have no other choice. What, is the NDP going to form the next Fed government? Balance of power maybe, but not without the Libs.

While I agree with much of what you posted G West, most of what you list is stuff that wouldn't be different from the Libs and no party will force an election on anyway.

Except the part I quoted. Those are issues that the Libs could fight, and win, an election on.

Frank: The to do is over Dobbin claiming the Greens took in 1.7 mil from election laws that state each vote is worth 1.75. The Greens got 650,000 votes. Even with this elections slight increase in votes, the Greens only mustered 1.165 mil. In 2004, it was 1.12 mil. Dobbin is off by 600,000 bucks and is smearing them as greedy to boot. That's my contention.

More dirt on the NCC:
This agenda was introduced, under Harper's watch.

The Alberta Agenda is based on 5 key steps that the provincial government can take to protect the provinces interests:

1) Alberta should collect its own income tax;
2) Alberta should resume responsibility for health care policy;
3) Create an Alberta Pension Plan to replace the Canada Pension Plan;
4) Force Senate Reform back onto the national agenda; and
5) Create an Alberta Provincial Police force.

Remember Alta. firewall? If you don't, or haven't heard of it, I strongly urge any readers to go to this website, click campaigns, click Canada or Alta, and you will clearly see Harpers agenda. Welcome to your new PM.

WM, I lived on the prairies, have you? I've been a member of the Sask NDP. I think I know them a little better than you do. The differences are less than you seem to think.

No official affiliation but only a fool thinks the same people aren't involved in both parties. Or are you claiming the "Young Liberals" clubs on campuses are split between provincial and federal? Funny I don't recall that being the case. I've also noticed federal Libs being pretty happy with Quebec Libs, Ontario Libs, BC Libs etc doing well.

I have no idea what this means except that apparently I'm now "Frankie". No matter, I'll still call you Working Man, Ron I'll still call Ron, Poindexter I'll still call Poindexter, NoLeftNutter I'll still call NoLeftNutter etc.

Dear Gerhardius, you could be a great comfort to many tolerant, long-suffering socialists if you could explain why our very existence (even on this intelligent discussion) causes the Uber-Conservatives to begin hurling invective. True or False, as long as it hurts, it's OK by them.

Think how it feels for us Lefties to have these dreary repetitions and accusations against former New Democrats who have served British Columbia honourably -- and who should not be battered and insulted ... I actually think the Lefties have been extremely relaxed, civil, and fun-loving.

Of course slings and arrows aren't "necessary in a political discussion" ... but may I introduce you to Ron Erwin? Working Man? And Elliot? Have a little chat. The topic for today is that Canada's recent federal election was Not So Bad, eh?

Aside from increasing the amounts of federal transfers, buying votes by selective taxpayer bribery, decimating our military, wrecking Health Care and almost blowing the '95 Quebec referendum, remind me again what a strong central government has done for us.

Frank
Libs won't force an election if all he does is consult, that's the point. Talk is cheap but it'll make the govt popular with the provinces and diminish the possibility of much federal/provincial controversy in the short term.
Of course it's not very different from Liberal precedent, how do you think they stayed in power for 80 of the last 100 years?
Harper is smart enough to know that and his supporters want power enough to bite their tongues and let him go with it - that's what Dobbin's analysis misses entirely - in my opinion!

Sound? Yes. Do I believe he had an epiphany one day on the road to Calgary? No.

I think Dobbin has been pretty clear in the past he's no friend of Harper's Cons. Some would even claim he has been fear-mongering against them.

I think Martin as finance minister will do well in the history books but Martin as PM won't. He tried to pull a Joe Clark and act as if he had a majority and dared anyone to stop him. They did.

Not in my lifetime, as I've said to you before.

And I have no problem with your contention. I just didn't think the article was about that issue and therefore $600k either way on the Greens in no way affects the gist of what he's talking about.

Of course I do, but Dobbin is saying Harper moved to the centre to campaign, he knew he wouldn't win if he campaigned as an NCC'er.

Frank, You are correct that the left has made improvements as far as seat totals go. But improving and winning are not the same thing.

The provincial election in 2001 and the recent federal election are anomalies. The NDP returned to normal in the last provincial election, just like the rest of Canada will go back to drinking the Liberal kool-aid by the next federal election. This is most likely a one time spike for both the NDP and Conservatives. They can possibly push their new found success into the next election, but we all know the Liberals and the Liberals only will be back in power before we know it.

Lets face it, the big winners in this election are Ontario and the Liberals, not the left or the right. The Liberals now have a dysfunctional parliament in which they can stretch out until they are ready to win again. This is really just a temporary blip in the Liberals dictatorship over Canada.

Wow, nice bit of cheerleading by Dobbin.

Didn't Layton say that he would not let the NDP party fall short of the balance of power again? If that was the goal, it seems hard to believe that this result is somehow a victory.

Going from the position that they were in, to the one they are in now is clearly a step backwards. Now the Bloc is the only true holder of that balance. In fact, they can influence the government AND the official opposition, as a Bloc-Liberal supported private members bill has a very good chance pass the house (only one vote short, but would still need 'Royal Assent' of course). NDP support would not give any other party enough support to even get close passing anything. They are unlikely to have any influence at all, they have nothing worthwhile to offer other than bringing down the government.

From holding the ear of the PM, to being ignored by everyone...

A great leap forward for socialism...

In Canada...

In our Parliment...

Only Murray could make this up.

Interestingly, there was a wonderful [url="http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html"]study [/url]that just came out that seems to show that, when an ideologues 'world view' is challenged, on the right or the left, the parts of the brain used for reasoning don't activate at all. Only the emotion and 'conflict resolution' centers activate.

Now just a minute here. Dobbin says that "Canada is a left wing country" and proves this by showing that the right wing party received only 36% of the vote. But then he suggests that, except for that little detail called human rights, the Liberals and the Conservatives are just two sides of the same right-wing coin.

If this is the case, then almost 70% of voters in this "left wing country" cast their votes for the right wing. When he says that Canada is a left wing country, he really means "left wing compared to the United States", which isn't saying much at all.

While making his points, Dobbin trashes every notable party except for his beloved NDP, for which he has virtually no criticism. Though he mocked Harper for winning votes from his gullible fellow citizens by pretending "to be well farther to the left than he actually is", he overlooks the fact that Layton attracted disenchanted Liberal voters by suggesting that perhaps some privatisation of medicare might be warranted and that we need to get tougher on criminals. If that isn't pretending to be farther to the right than Layton actually is, it's likely that it's farther to the right than the rest of his party is.

I'm no fan of Stephen Harper - I wouldn't even vote for him if it was a choice between he and, say, Glen Clark. But I would like to see a little objectivity in the Tyee. Dobbin, as he has shown us in the past, seems unfortunately incapable of providing it, instead writing simple left wing rants.

Frustrated by the mainstream local press, I'm drawn to the Tyee in the hope of finding balance. But to find only the opposite extreme is quite disappointing.

Okay, got it, the new leader which will deliver many majorities to the Libs is non other than

David Orchard, remember him and Peter McKay

He is one, 1) A passionate Canadian who can relate to the masses,
2) A rural wheat farmer and not an elite.
3) Evidence of betrayal by the conservatives.

Put Orchard on a nation debate and its game over,
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html

Deja, where those your emotion and conflict resolution centres hyper-activating again?

Whew, what a smell! Give us a warning next time.

JIm
I'm not sure that, as you put it:

In fact, for the reasons outlined above, I think this may well be an opportunity for the Cons to hang onto power for some time, if they play their cards right: The treasury is full after all and Harper seems willing to let the provinces back the trucks up to the door. Don't be too sure that greed won't win out in the end. Harper lacks the overly destructive ego of many politicians although he is, at heart, a true ideologue even if you wouldn't know it from the campaign. He may be able to enforce discipline on his troops where PC governments always failed in the past

Somebody told me an interesting little item the other day. Nothing to do with Harper, but with his brethren in BC, the Campbell, "free enterprise" government.

It seems, the BC Libs demand that Costco should provide them with a list of their BC customers who shop in their Alberta stores and then report every time they buy something, so they can be charged the BC sales tax. This is, of course, mostly applicable to the Peace River oil/gas patch, where people make a lot of money and spend it in Alberta.

I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, I've never heard of anything like this. The next thing will be border guards on every road, searching vehicles.

Ed Deak.

Nice to see your still drinking Allan.

Jim,

No they aren't and I wasn't claiming they were. Its not like I'm dancing a jig over here. But it is an improvement so there's nothing to be disappointed about either. Well, except that the NDP only picked up 3 in Toronto, I was hoping for 6. No big deal.

Probably, yup. Not 100% certain as that depends on their own internal politics and who they come out of the next gate with.

Fiat lux - you didn't imagine it, Social Service Tax collection is trying to get Costco to pass on info on BC shoppers who've done business in Alta since, I think, the mid-1990s. Not so strange, Provincial Law has always read that tax is payable on such purchases but nobody ever tried to collect it. Bring a car into BC from Alta and try to register it and you'll get hit then too.
Sorry.

Ya, I thought the same thing. You can't claim the Libs are both left and right as it suits. In my opinion, which is worthless but what the hell, the outgoing Libs were on the right but many Lib voters still see them as being as progressive as the Toronto Star paints them.

BC Mary,

Cognitive linguistics can give some insight into the way discussions go between individuals with opposing world views.

You are comparing specific accusations, some founded while others are complete BS, against specific people. My post was about using German words in a clear effort to imply something nobody could seriously write without looking silly. Say what you want about Harper and his hidden agenda or any scandal or person running for office or who ever held office: Svend is a thief, Hedy Fry wrote fake prescriptions, Gordon Campbell is a drunk, Randy White is a right-wing fanatic and Glen Clark has a nice porch. Can anyone honestly add "Harper is a Nazi" to that list? Obviously not, yet that has been implied.

Yes the "Lefties" have, but on the whole I find the Tyee a great source of banter. The Tyee is like a mountain with Slippery Slopes, Ad Hominem attacks and Emotional Appeals on all sides.

I never came out against "slings and arrows," I was specific about the kind of terminology I questioned. If Harper is indeed "Herr Harper" then why doesn't somebody come out and say "he's a Nazi" when there is little censorship in this forum and a few people will agree simply out of intellectual laziness? Is there a magical line hidden somewhere?

Now that you mentioned it...regarding the future of the L's and Ken Dryden for leader,

I grew up a Canadiens fan and Dryden was my favourite player. I think he would make a good leader for the L's as the only "smelly baggage" he has is old hockey gear. He is smart, speaks French OK as far as I remember from his interviews, and has a broad appeal. I have had a theory for a long time that most Liberals are Leafs fans, could they bring themselves to put Dryden in charge?

Gerhardius
Seems to me Dryden's last job in Hockey was as President of the Leafs - so his bona fides are okay in that respect too, eh!

BCMary and Murray Dobbin

You're both wrong about Martin. He's a decent person who inherited some nasty stuff from Chretien. Ineffectual, yes, criminal no. I hate to see people being smeared in this way.

And BCMary, DRYDEN? What a joke; he's the human sedative. The Liberals are looking at McKenna, Manley, or Ignatieff (except for his unfortunate stance on Iraq) or a dark horse. I know people in the party- never Dryden or Tobin for that matter.

Gerhardius it's because they are fascist. In our memory we've only known one other fascist group, German Nazis and Mussolini's Italy. In fact Canada fought a hard fought war against them. Many of us have direct family members who lost their lives fighting fascism. It's hard to forget.

Neo-conservitives deliberately use techniques, including scapegoating that the Nazis were well known for doing. Another that comes readily to mind is Blitzkerig etc.

That is why.

Frank and anyone else:

I was a bit misleading about the last post being entirely directed at you, Frank, just spilling opinion (with a few facts) more than anything. Dobbins is an NDP activist who runs down every party and leader except his own. That bothers me when he has to lie to do it with the Greens to keep any ridings from splitting... and they didn't. But.

Last I checked, the NDP movement was based on equality and fairness. Where's the fairness in this? Its twice now, that he's done this in articles concerning Green party misquotes. He should be fully aware of this mistake from the first one, which leads me to assume only one thing and its nasty.

You see, I'm just not much of a fan of journalists or writers who smear the truth to promote their own special interests... and that's what he's doing! Its not about the truth anymore, or this policy is unequal, or that policy is unfair. He's getting into the gutter and to blast Martin a day after retirement, or any other man who has tried to serve this country... and he did. As much as some of us are brainwashed into not admitting it, he did.

Martin took the helm of a government that was headed for scandal. If it would have been anyone else, we'd likely be in a majority Con government right now, and that is something that Dobbin should think about. Life without Martin, instead of with him. Maybe we don't like surplus's or money for social spending, or strong Canadian dollars, or maybe we just don't like any other party or politician other than our own... and its sad. If you all aren't getting this, well, maybe those of you who like to kick someone when they're down... and its tasteless.

We had Derek Zeisman get 19% of the votes in his riding. Remember the guy with the stolen car caught at the border with booze and who knows what... This kid got 19% of the vote with 8948 people that didn't have a clue who he was. People voted for this guy without the knowledge that the Cons wouldn't have him in their party. The Green party candidate in his riding got 5258 votes.

Scott Leyland was a solid a candidate as it gets for the Greens. We vote more for thieves (and I should note that he's not convicted... yet, on 6 charges of smuggling) then we do for UBC professor physiotherapists, and I know what some of you are thinking, with Alex getting 50% of the vote. But the point is still worth mentioning.

Your right on earlier posts, Frank. For the most part, people vote the same way they did last time. Its the herd mentality, combined with familiarity. What decides elections now that Quebec votes bloc, is who votes red or blue in Ontario. Thats how it is, and unless the NDP runs better candidates country wide and has a platform that has less spending and less tax cuts, I don't see them holding the balance of power, and that is what they need to grow.

And the Bloc won't be quick out of the bloc? They hold the balance of power now with either major party. This ensure's their success in the next election, but only if they are willing to work with government. I don't see it happening with the Cons. Look at their ideology!

This whole article refuses to even acknowledge that there is a center or moderate or bit a both, left right in this country. And even to use this termonology to begin with... its dangerous. It cements conflicting ideologies together, till some smart crook sees the contradictions within the individuals and parties and proclaims, "Left, right, there's no difference, just vote for me."

Cont. from last post.

But some believe there is a difference, especially with the smears they create to pull their influencial strings:
Lefty=socialist=commie=everyone earns the same cheque and pay, regardless of efforts and all that bull. To me, Lefty is equality. Fairness. An equal opportunity to work, for equal pay, based on your ability to contribute. To me, thats fair. This is what the NDP have traditionally represented Federally (and to a much lesser degree, provincially), even though we get mud slingers like Dobbin above us.

And, to me, righty is the opposite: We don't want equality. We want to control. If not our own lives with less government, then we want to control the lives of others with our government. Fairness? Not when it comes to taxes or heathcare. We've got the money so its pay as you go, because that works for us... regardless of wether or not its at everyone elses expense. Share? We don't care. And, these rants are usally followed by a bunch of I's. I built this, I've done that, what has that welfare bum done, and so on.

And how many claim this and do that? We all do. And how many have left and right within them? Show me a person who shouldn't be in control of themselves. Show me a lefty who doesn't play favorites, and I'll show you a righty who doesn't want to spend every untaxed penny they earn. Show me someone who can keep their word, or not change their minds... and they exist, but there aren't many out there. So we are also moderate, a few even center, another word for being a bit of both.

It's another Joe Clark government, folks. They can hold power until money needs to be spent, a budget needs to be passed, or, more appropriately, until the Liberals have it together enough to challenge. Harper is nothing more than a figurehead at this point, and could only prosper if the Libs choose a fool to lead.

I can't think of any other political organisation in human history that would equate coming in fourth a victory.

2004- fourth

2000- fourth

1996- fourth

1993- fourth

Hell, they can't even outdo the Bloc and they run in only one province.

Nor can I even fanthom any poltical "movement" being content with the same showing it had in 1962.

I suppose avoiding extincition a kind of victory.

Gerhardius:

I always thought that Harper was called "Herr Harper" as reference to his "Calgary School" fellows being Straussian economic theory devotees.

Strauss was ... drum roll please... German.

Maybe I was giving people too much credit.

McKenna has made too many anti-Canadian comments under the guise of conciliation.
Manley worked to implement too much neo-con policy. And, Ignatieff has cooked his own goose with his writings. If the Libs want to come back they must shake the neo-cons out of the tree and become the big tent party again.
Can they do it? Who knows.

As far as Martin goes... He is very likable. However, it seems as if sold himself out at the prospect of being PM. He probably lied to himself that he could control some of the policies ie for seniors etc, while moving to the 'free-market', ignoring that he was also telling lies to the public. Even though I can see how frustrating it must have been to have C never retire and give him a turn, he did the unethical and back stabbed him. Hooked himself up with some unsavory tactics and lost his way. It's very sad.

Stuart;
David Orchard would be more suited to lead the NDP. I'm not joking.

Nazi, no. Not yet, at least. Fascist, yes.

The brain: "You see, I'm just not much of a fan of journalists or writers who smear the truth to promote their own special interests..."

Wow, but you are so, so silent when it comes to misleading us saying that Alberta teachers are low on the totem. Arguments get much weaker when you write things that are utterly untrue as facts. You can't complain about other writers/journalists if you do it too. That's called ... starts with an "h" I think ... LOL!

So you're saying he'd be fit right in as a good commentator around here but as a columnist he leaves mush to be desired? I like his articles on trade better.

Sorta, our little manifesto may say that somewhere in the back.

Ya, and I don't argue with the fact you're pissed about it. But I don't think he reads the comments so he may not be aware. Or he's on some anti-Green crusade that I wouldn't agree with.

So obviously you've quit reading the main stream media, cancelled your National Post and Van Sun subs and have come to the Tyee which is driving you crazy because you're reading Dobbin? Ignore him and reduce your blood pressure...

He wouldn't be alone, lots of that going on. And I'm one who didn't think much of Martin the PM because he talked a way better game than he played. Still he is likeable in his own way.

I know, it sucks, I agree, but what are you gonna do..

The NDP could copy the Lib platform word for word and still lose. There is no nirvana for the NDP by moving to the centre federally. What they need is a high birth rate.

True, no argument. Every group has to have its mudslingers though. I, for example, don't read Campbell or Mihlar who sling mud all the time.

And, another thing, Hitler also appealed to the battered self-esteem that Germany suffered under at that time. Part of his power was his promise to restore Germany's former glory. There were elements of that in Harper's victory speech.

These people are fascist under more than a few definitions of the word. And, incredibly dishonest.

The Libs just did worse than they did even in 1968. Almost 40 years later and they've gotten a worse result in spite of all that money spent. And now they're in mucho debt to boot. My heart goes out to them.

This is what I'm hoping for:

1. Belinda gets elected as leader of the Liberals.
2. The Liberals win government in the next election, thumping Harper badly.
3. Harper is dumped for Peter.
4. We now have a PM and Opposition leader that have "known" each other, if you know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
5. Canadian journalists try and explain this to the American MSM.

Noleftnutter: We need a strong federal government that stands up for the interests of Canada. That has not been the case as of late. Our federal government has been weakened by seeping neo-conservatism.... weakened by the resulting philosophy of greed and by the desire for unchecked power....and yes, weakened also by neo-conservatism's inherent stupidity...in that it does not perceive the damage it is doing to life in this country and to all life on this good earth of ours.

Neo-conservative governments for all their ruthlessness rule out of weakness and dysfunction... like any callous schoolyard bully.

Their agenda is to fracture Canada by our differences, (province against province, First Nations, the West, Quebec) rather than binding us together as a real government, (a strong central government), that believed in real governance would do.

Who will fight for this country if there is no strong central government? Ten self-interested opportunistic Premiers? No chance. By the way, all part of the domino plan to erode Canada bit by bit...

The survival of our national health system, despite the attacks on it reveal its inherent strengths. The attempted dismantling of our social infrastructure is due to the weaknesses of our recent federal governments - due to their growing neo-conservatism.

Medicare, is not wrecked by the way, despite the rumours of its demise... rumours spread largely by the neo-cons who want so desperately to make it so.

Our American wannabee governments of late cultivate a successful image...but they are weak, have no sense of self, no identity, ...no soul...

They are neither strong nor wealthy in the true sense of those words.

"There is the desire for a strong central government able to define and implement objectives that all Canadians share, and the virtues of strong dynamic provinces, each responsive to local communities, each able to experiment and innovate."

Murray,

Get your head out of your ass.

Canada has never and will never be left wing. You live in a fantasy world that still believes greater government spending will save all our problems.

Wake up and smell the sulphur dioxide! Here is the REAL situation:ELECTION 2006:

ANOTHER CASE OF ELECTORAL DYSFUNCTION

VOTING SYSTEM REWARDS SEPARATISTS,

PUNISHES WESTERN LIBERALS, URBAN CONSERVATIVES, NEW DEMOCRATS, AND GREENS

Once again, Canada's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted
millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks
of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an
unrepresentative Parliament, and may possibly have even given us the
wrong government.

The chief victims of the January 23 federal election were:

- Western Liberals: In the prairie provinces, Conservatives
got three times as many votes as Liberals did, but won nearly ten
times as many seats. In Alberta, the Conservative Party won 100% of
the seats with 65% of the votes. The 500,000 Albertans who voted
otherwise elected no one.

- Urban Conservatives: The 400,000-plus Conservative voters
in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver should have been able to elect
about nine MPs, but instead elected no one. The three cities together
will not have a single MP in the governing caucus, let alone the cabinet.

- New Democrats: The NDP attracted a million more votes than
the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats, the NDP 29.
Nearly 18% of Canadians voted NDP, but the party won less than 10% of the seats and does not hold the balance of power, unlike the Liberals and the Bloc.

- Green Party: 665,940 Green Party voters across
the country elected no one, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic
Canada elected 20 MPs.

- Federalists and nationalists: As usual, the voting system
turned entire regions of Canada into partisan fiefdoms, rather than
allowing the diversity of views in all regions to be fairly
represented in Parliament and within each national party.

"How can anyone continue to think that this voting system gives us
good geographic representation," said Wayne Smith, President of Fair
Vote Canada, "when it fragments and divides our country like this?"

"Had results been fair, it is possible that we may have even seen a
different government," said Smith. "The Liberals, NDP, and Greens
represent a majority, and together they would have held a majority of
seats."

Had the same votes been cast under a proportional voting system, Fair
Vote Canada projected that the seats allocation would have been
approximately as follows:

Conservatives - 36.3% of the popular vote: 113 seats (not 124)

Liberals - 30.1% of the popular vote: 93 seats (not 103)

NDP - 17.5% of the popular vote: 59 seats (not 29)

Bloc - 10.5% of the popular vote: 31 seats (not 51)

Greens - 4.5% of the popular vote: 12 seats (not 0)

However, Smith emphasized that speculation should be tempered.

"With a different voting system, people would have voted differently,"
he said. "There would have been no need for strategic voting. We would
likely have seen higher voter turnout. We would have had different
candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We would
have had more real choices."

"The voting system really matters - a lot - and the system we have is
simply not acceptable in a modern democracy."

--

Oh yeah, and the Green Party increased its numbers again despite your miserable and false antics about Jim Harris and the party. That's less than 890,000 votes from the BQ and less than 2 million from your beloved NDP. If more Green voters ARE coming from the right, isn't that the point!? The fact is that it doesn't matter where you lie on the political spectrum because that is traditional politics. The Green Party doesn't catagorise like you do and maybe one day you will finally get it!

You are a whiner. Try backing up your arguments with solid facts for a change.

Michael Clift
While Leo Strauss was certainly a German by birth, it would be unfair to underline that aspect of his heritage. He was a Jewish refugee from the Holocaust. In fact, he criticized mass movements of both right and left and urged his students to be wary of anyone who would undertake 'the dismantling of the structure of rational inquiry.'
The 'Herr' is definitely misplaced.

As to Harper's mentors, I think you'll find there are others more appropriate, such as economist Friedrich Hayek, to cite as his intellectual progenitors.

Quite remarkable that our resident mouth-breathers, non-working man, little elliot, little ronnie and their disciple martin the marvel, all decry the influence of the real working folks. You know, the ones who are actually working while these dillweeds type their screed. What a bunch of losers.

It does not matter if you own the enterprise non-working boy, using company time to digitally masturbate is theft. Others, the real working folks, have to pick up the slack to make up for your political/erotic fantasies. What a wanker.

Canada began as an agricultural society. The first socialist organizations were farmers organizations. Alongside miners and industrial workers, farmers recognized that working collectively make it better for everyone.

Everyone except perhaps for little elliot, who never used public schooling, public health care, or any of that socialist garbage to get where he is today. And where he is, apparently, is not working as he is always spewing forth on this blog.

"Our American wannabee governments of late cultivate a successful image...but they are weak, have no sense of self, no identity, ...no soul..."

Now if that doesn't describe the whole kit and kaboodle of them-, going back certainly a long ways in this country. We are a colony of The Empire in all but name only-, with scarcely an intervening period of independence between our bootlicking the old British Empire, and now the US Empire. And our governments all, save perhaps for Tommy Douglas and Trudeau, deliberately placed second, have all been weak, vacillating and toadying. It is the real history we have to face up to and change, it we are ever going to be a real "sovereign" nation and not just something less that tries to pass for it.

It is part of the reason why the Neocon traitors amongst us are so legion. They rise up out of that long bootlicking heritage.

Nicht ein Nazi aber ein Not-see: Herr Harper (mit Fraulein Kenny) ist der schlechtes Genie von der Not-see Menace.

bluenose, I don't know what you said but the French just declared Paris an Open City.

Frank, your posts are as usual very astute except in one way;

The Federal Liberal party has formed tons of governments is will with 99% certainly form another one.

The Federal NDP party has never formed a government and will with 99% certainty never from one.

And you know that. Being #4 is hardly what I call a victory.

Frank,

"Not a Nazi but a Not-see. Mr. Harper(with Mrs. Kenny) is the poor genius from the Not-see-Menace."

Quite cute. I like it. A clever play on words and quite funny.

Well done Murray.

so the ndp got about half of their best ever... so did the tories.

the 50% increase in seats experienced by the NDP is reasonably viewed as forward progress to the extent that it is a success.

I agree, Harper and Martin both benefited from a serious lack of scrutiny from "legitimate" media.

I still think the most savvy politician, in this last Canadian election, was George Bush.

tks,
rjm

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010303.html

This writer also has a great old article that describes how the neo-cons are fascists. I'm trying to find it.

But as I said to JIm, I'm not claiming victory. I'm claiming improvement.

Somewhere above you mentioned that not becoming extinct is a sort of victory. Well ya, Darwin thought so.

The PCs and the NDP were both almost wiped out. Both at or around 12 seats. The NDP came back to their old levels, the PCs were absorbed.

That is not victory in the sense of actually winning the election but it's better than dropping to 3 seats and then joining the Greens in arguing with the networks to be included in debates.

As far as the federal Libs and federal NDP I have never once suggested the federal Libs haven't been more successful at it. I have responded many times to your argument as you know. My point is I'm getting tired of responding to it on a practically weekly basis. You could at least do it only on a monthly basis.

There is no answer as to what the NDP can do to win. The federal NDP will beat the federal Liberals in an election when NDPers have a hell of a lot of kids or we get hit with another great depression and its a Lib on watch. There is no other way. But in the meantime being a force on the left, drawing 17.5% of the vote when the winner is only drawing 36% is pretty darn good because it means your issues get taken seriously and often even adopted.

Thanks Coyote, I'll call Petain in Vichy and let him know it was only a joke :)

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010303.html

He's a conservative author as well, albeit, obviously not a neo-conservative.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5070

Sorry, the former post is not the one I was looking for. Here it is for any who may be interested.

Vancouver Point Grey, please spare us the numbers, percentages, if, what ifs,
if onlies, the spin and the whining.

Yes, the NDP got more votes nationwide than the block, but didn't get any seats in Quebec and fewer seats than the bloc in total.

So bloody what? And just what would STV or any other form of PR do to alter that?

Zippo!

The Bloc got 100 per cent of it's vote in one province, in fact a majority of the overall
votes in Quebec.

The NDP, which I just so humbly suggest would have better served Canada as a majority government (don't choke), got it's vote in all 10 provinces and three territories and nowhere did it get the majority of votes, so why would it have more seats.

Sorry, but you can't mix a race in one province with a race in another to tally your score except in some type of bragging rights initiative that party activists like to bore people with.

Can you imagine the ire of the rednecks if one party had a surplus of votes in say Quebec and could use them to take seats in Alberta.

Now that would be entertainment, I assure you.

Thanks, redrivergirl. An interesting read. And about as accurate an assessment of the new fascist period, represented by the Neocons, as I've read.

allan,

It just so happens that I'm from Quebec and know a thing or 2 about the politics there.

Ofcourse all the votes for the BQ came from Quebec as that is the only place they ran. So, why should the rest of the country have to listen to Duceppe in the debates while Jim Harris and the Greens represented in all ridings sits on the sidelines?...

One of the great outcomes in this election is that the BQ lost seats and numbers. Federalism is creeping back in. NDP is still and never has been an option in Quebec and there were no seats gained there.

They mostly voted against the Liberals and not FOR sovereignty. As much as I dislike the Tories, or neocons, I'd rather see a federalist minority than a seperatist one...

My numbers still stand. We are ONE country and ONE planet with ONE people.

redrivergirl

What about Franco, Salazar, Stroessner and Apartheid South Africa? Not to mention any authoritarian state that was not a client of the Soviet Union. Regardless of the reasoning, it is amazing how one can find exceptions to ideals regarding the inherent problem with racial stereotypes,even if it denigrates a linguistic group through association as collateral damage.

Hmm, it seems you may be making an assumption based upon my name. My Dad was in the RCNVR, I had an uncle who died in Italy with the Canadian Corps and other relatives who served. in three different allied armies in WW2. I hope that proves the anti-fascist zeal of my ancestors. I don't believe the difficulties anybody had fighting fascism make it OK to imply that someone or something is fascist by linguistic association.

You honestly believe that the neo-cons are the only political group that practices scapegoating? Propaganda isn't the sole domain of the right wing parties, if we are using the traditional linear system of analysis, and "big lies" come from politicians of all stripes. There isn't a government in the western world that doesn't use some form of propaganda that one can't somehow associate with Nazi Germany. The Nazis were at least equaled in effective use of propaganda by other totalitarians like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. There has been some very interesting writing on the subject of propaganda, Jacques Ellul and Randal Martin come to mind.

Ok, you lost me there. The neo-cons use blitzkrieg in what sense?

Yes, Hitler appealed to national esteem and used oratory to move masses of people: few effective political speakers can't be compared stylistically to Hitler in some way or another when one considers only public speaking and propaganda. Take a look at Jack Layton's election night speech http://www.ndp.ca/page/3450 and change "NDP" to "National Socialists," "Canadians" to "Germans," "Parliament" to "Reichstag" and the closing from "the Canada we love" to "a strong Germany" and it reads like something off of Hitler's desk. Three nouns and a phrase and Jack is Adolph. The methods are pretty standard but it is the message that matter, and while Harper is right wing it is hyperbole to claim he is fascist in any way besides the convenient pejorative it has become meaning anything not left.

Yes but not by any strict definitions really. Most strict definitions seem to include authoritarianism as an element: do you seriously believe that Harper is any more interested in a one party state than any other politician? Sure they want the people to decide, but they want the people to give them a majority so they can implement a program with a minimum of parliamentary opposition. Using terms like fascist in such a broad fashion diminish the realities of fascism.

The quote you include metioning 1984 is interesting, especially since a very strong argument could be made that accepting a broad definition of "fascism" and "fascist" is simply an effort to make any right of centre political thought unappealing and inherently incorrect. The broader the term becomes the more limiting and meaningless it is in discussion.

Sorry, had to split the post.

Thanks for posting those links, I especially enjoyed:

A Fascist America
How close are we?

I don't disagree with the author about the dangers in the US from the neo-cons but there aren't many "democracies" in the world that are immune from a catastrophic event leading to totalitarian rule.

only the ndp could celebrate winning 29/308 seats. bona-fide losers all.

Enrich yourself,
protect yourself,
and hold yourself
in high esteem:
this is the way
the world works,
this is the way
it's always been.

-- Stephen Harper, from "Ode to a Bank Note," a work-in-regress

The essence of conservatism is its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated (i.e. a blind faith that privileges privilege).

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desireable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."

-- F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

Dear Dobbin,

Canada is a left-wing country? I fear that your enthusiasm is misplaced. The election was a terrible defeat for the social conservatives. But, it is not a victory for the left. Rather, it is a victory for the center.

Note that the NDP's share of the national vote 18% is about the same as the core support for the Conservative program. Does that sound familiar? In a bell curve with normal distribution, the extreme ends represent about 17% at each end. In the long run, the 67% of the population in the center will vote moderately.

Canadians are progressive. They value human rights, peaceful means and cohesive ends. The political struggle is for the nature of governance. At the extremes, the Libertarians are pitted against those with authoritarian tendencies. In this respect, the social conservatives and NDP are equally obnoxious. Both ideologies seek to impose their will on the majority.

The social conservatives would allow total economic freedom in exchange for a narrow social morality. The Lefties would limit economic freedom and impose their morality. It is no surprise that the neo-cons are in power in America, while the Left is almost irrelevant. The Lefties are no doubt waiting for a version of 'historic inevitability'.

The Liberals are in tune with the majority of the population. The Liberals are effective in macro economic matters but light on the coercion. That leaves it up to the citizens to support their favorite causes in a personal manner and at a local level. Hence, the extreme ideologies seek to discredit the Liberals ability to govern.

The political scene will be roiled by the political agitation of the ideological enemies, who define themselves as the reverse of their enemy. It is the task of the political center to listen to the democratic wishes of the majority, while keeping the focus on the center. In this respect, Paul Martin's government failed. There are two future possibilities. Either the Liberals regain their balance, or the Conservatives actually move to the center. Wither the Left?

Jim

Grw

I enjoyed your post and think it is fairly accurate view of the next session in the House of Common.

However I have to ask you about this statement:

Why is it pandering? The gun registry was supposed to cost only 2 million a year after revenue and expenses are calculated. It is estimated to have cost 2 billion already and the Liberal government despite promising a 85 million yearly spending cap, recently tendered a 750 million dollar computer system contract. The AG has particularly singled out this program as extremely excessive and badly managed. There is no clear link to this program saving any lives, and the cost-benefits analysis done by the Liberals was kept a cabinet secret.

Not to mention, despite Martin and McClellan both personally stating (on camera) that registration would not lead to confiscation, they proposed just that during the election.

I would say that you could have come up with a better word than “pandering”

The computer contract was for the gun registry program in case I was not clear.

Tyee, how about a post edit fuction???? please

Colin:
'Pander' I would have thought was the perfect verb, capturing as is does the idea of ministering to one's passions. And passion being a pretty accurate analogue for the feelings of those enthusiasts who have been so diligent in pressing the case against the continuation of the gun registry. My point simply was to emphasize that Prime Minister Harper will have little difficulty finding ways to spend the savings from the gun registry cancellation on other priorities.

Hayek, by the way, would call neoconservatives by another name - liberals - ironic in the Canadian context - but he means the same thing.

Colin: The computer contract was for the gun registry, true, and the RCMP use it most. Did the RCMP need a computer bank to access to? That's the answer I'd like to know. There's a good story in CBC's reality check online, if your interested, talking about the future of gun registry budgets and policy changes.

Chris H: Go back to your old thread, slowpoke. You'll find out there, why you shouldn't be laughing.

Gerhardius, I'm glad you enjoyed them. Here is another. I'm sure you're familiar with the material.

http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html

Just a few quotes from it...

Bolding mine.

http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html

Harper etal are fascists. Whether they turn into the most dangerous definition of the word remains to be seen.

I am reminded of an apt quote. One I posted the other day in fact.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Whether that selfishness is the pursuit of financial gain that isn't yours, but the collective abundance of others, emotional gain via hurting others, or dubious intellectual gain dressed up in the garbs of, it is still selfishness.

Somewhere in the above postings is the sentence, 'ideas have consequences'. These ideas are hurting real people. Where will it stop? It's okay to through seniors and disabled people out of their homes. It's okay to cut people, children, off their meager allowence. This disregard for them and the scapegoating of people on welfare could be, if we're not very careful and reverse these trends, only but a step. I think those of us who are called left, but of course are not by any real definition, but rather caring, moderate citizens, are able to make linkages that some can not. Is it difficult to realize the German people did not get to where they ended up in a moment, but that there were steps within their society? Steps that we are walking down right now in our history?

I concur that '**********' is associated with Nazi Germany. This is the fascism that resonates with most Canadians. I realize other nations are not exempt from becoming their own 'Nazi Germany' and that is the point.

Too bad it is have been elected. When you are #4 and victory is declared, perhaps there is a problem with the programme?

...dubious intellectual gain dressed up in the garb of philosophical theory...

********** is the word that has stars. Has it been censored?

Surely not. There is even a book called, "The Brownshirting of America".

Oh my goodness. David Beers, why is the word censored? It must be an error. No?

Ed Deak:

The Costco story is true, but I don't think that this sort of inane action was plotted around the cabinet table. It wreaks of a civil service without any political common sense.

Anyway, the initiative was withdrawn about 2 minutes after it leaked out when saner head prevailed, but not soon enough before Rick Thorpe made the usual ass of himself. But he'd do that regardless of what party he represents.

Come on, allan, are you using today's windfall to smoke wacky-tabacky like yesteday when you claimed, what was it, there were 298 opposition members?

The Bloc got only 42% of the popular vote in Quebec in an election Duceppe openly called a referendum on soverignty.

Dueceppe really rammed his Marxist foot in his mouth by saying that. Kind of like you, allan.

Check your fact before you spew.

Canada is a socialist country. There is no doubt about that.
Universal ( badly run ) medicare, Employment Insurance ( a rip off scheme extraordinaire ) CPP ( let me manage my own money ) OAP ( let me manage my own money ) Canada Revenue ( income taxes are not supported by The Charter )
Marketing Boards ( why can't I get that cheese from Holland ) CRTC ( why can't I watch Fox News or the Super Bowl with the American commercials ? )
Abortion on demand and payes by the Govt. to private, for profit clinics,
Need I go on ? I could for hours.
One thing I have learned being a Libertarian Conservative, is that Canada is a liberal, socialistic country, where in Ontario, you have to deal with the OLCB just to get drunk.
So, I have to deal with this basic fact when making an argument.
Most Canadians are very, very, very, very socialistic.
We are working on this fatal flaw.

From Wikipedia

More examples

The term "Digital Brownshirts," a controversial phrase coined by former Vice-President Al Gore, is used by Gore to disparage the right-leaning weblogs that criticize (what they perceive as) a liberal agenda in the mainstream media.

The term is also in the online dictionary.

It would be heavily ironic if it is a banned word. lol

If we lobby for Fox news here will you join us? :)

Can't you get it on satellite?

The Nazi Party was a socialist entity.
Fascism is in the dictionary, it applies more to the NDP and Liberals than it does to the Conservatives.
The lies that Canadians have believed for years are soon to be exposed as the B.S. it is.
This world has rejected Socialism. Two victories for George Bush, two victories by Gordon Campbell, One victory, so far, for Steven Harper.
Oh, I feel sorry for lefties in this 2006 modern day global world.
Na na na , hey hey,hey goodbye. ( or should I say good-bi )
Nice to know it's over.

No Ron, it wasn't. It ran on a vague socialist policy in the early elections but did not in any way touch the cartels such as Maybach, Daimler-Benz, Ford, General Motors, Krupp and IG Farben (to name a few) that dominated German industry at the time. German business thrived under the Nazi regime.

Practically all the cartels that worked so eagerly with Hitler are still with us and most (if not all) did a lot of really dirty deeds. The perps were never brought to justice, except for maybe Speer who organised it all. The money these companies made was channeled of of Germany in 1944-45 via the Vatican Bank to South America and back to the Bundesrepublik soon after its creation. Included was a large chunk of the wealth swiped from the Jews. That is what financed Germany's "Economic Miracle."

Really, the Nazis were so barbarically horrible that we really have nothing in Canada that can even come close. Sure Mao and Stalin were just as bad, it is just we do not have their archives.

UPS delivery 'persons' ( guys ) drive around in brown trucks and wear brown uniforms.
Have you seen any brown helicopters flying over your house ?
I know I have.
The Cleavland Browns ore a closet Nazi organization.
There will be armed military personnel, marching down your street with loaded GUNS,
I am not making this up, I'm not allowed to.
They are going to shoot you. I don't blame you for being SCARED out of your wit's.
I am so sick of this ignorance.

The Nazi Party was a vague, socialist party ? I My recollection is that the N ( Nazi ) took over every manufacturing plant, educational facility, made certain companies rich with monopoly, like our socialist CRTC did for Shaw and Rogers, they curtailed information from other countries entering their domain by burning books and extreme censorship, like our CRTC which is a product of a socialistic ( so called )country we live in. See my previous comments on this string.
Everything was nationalized in Germany at that time.
You are not correct on this one.

The CBC National was great tonight, they had a cartoon of past PMs pickering which was quite humerous. Also, Rex Murphy put things in perspective.

If you missed it, you can watch it online via Real Player.

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/national/thenational.ram

If only more tv stations streamed....

People, people, get a grip on yourselves - take a minute and watch the Colbert Report, this is getting ridiculous. Calling Stephen Harper and the Conservatives fascists is an insult to them - and it's an insult to the fascists too - there's no comparison.
Good night.

I agree, trying to disparage a political party by associating it with early 20th century radical nationalism is over the top.

Besides, when did Francisco Franco ever suggest solving the fiscal imbalance with the catalans and basques?

Andre Arthur; Is the only independent MP elected. So there are actually 11 Conservative members in Parliament.
Google this guy and you will see he took on the CRTC with his outrageous right wing statements, and I think was fired from that particular radio station.
Well he came back, and is representing Quebec City.
Isn't life wonderful ?

"and not just something less that tries to pass for it"....and that is a key and vital point Coyote is making.

Why would we want to settle for what just passes as a sovereign nation?

C'mon the real thing is always better.

That is why the strange silence in both our provincial and federal elections over the whole issue of Canadian sovereignty (the americanization of Canada via privatisation)... to me, at least was deeply disturbing. Those we counted on to speak up for us at this historically critical time didn't...they were cautious to the point of being timid and measured to the point of being false.

These are pretty dangerous times, in which to settle for the silence of mediocrity ...and for the dangerous betrayals, both large and small, necessary to constantly feed it.

...and thanks redrivergirl for all the great links. :-)

Don't really understand people who have a problem with registering their guns with RCMP. Seems paranoid. We register cars, driver's licenses etc. for RCMP access, and there are significant benefits to this. ie if your car is stolen they know where to find you if it's recovered. And if you prove unworthy of owning a car or license, RCMP can take them both away from you, pending a decision from a judge on whether to reinstate either.

I'm all for libertarianism but there would seem to be real benefits for RCMP to know beforehand whether the nuisance complaint they're responding to could involve an unhinged gun-owner. Perhaps the Laval constable, Valerie Gignac, shot to death Dec. 10 by a .338 rifle fired through a wall and her bullet-proof vest, would be alive today if the judge had listened to the doctors and police who argued against allowing the accused to have a hunting license and rifles because of his criminal record, mental condition and obsession with female police officers — that judge should be shot. But there you go, any nutbar can own a gun, and if not, there's a judge who'll order that he's given this right.

redrivergirl, your posts seem very timely - though I suppose that there is likely to be some group somewhere on this planet articulating your truths. I had just finished skimming over the Cubans marching to the tune: "Bush: fascist! Condemn the terrorist!" just yesterday. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/24/111639.shtml?s=os (I love how those South Americans don't mince words and get to the heart of the matter...). But, apparently, our faux pas on elections night was a fault in the stars and not in our populace - it is the year of the Dog so it really is no surprise the Conservatives are Harping at the helm of responsible gov't for this short space of time. The year of the Dog is not supposed to be human friendly... so socialism apparently is a no-go for now.

Ron Erwin

Considering the latest in from the Palestinian elections - that strangely parallel our own need for "change" in elected officials - Dobbin's sentiments that it could have been worse seems an understatement. They officially have elected a Hamas majority - there is always someone who has it worse off. Canadians can at least be relieved they are not ruled by a majority of either the likes of the Bush Administration or Hamas. Always looking for that silver lining....

It was interesting? ro view the results on the front pages. If one was from another country that had some manner of pro-rep, the results could appear as a mistake. ie Bloc 10%- 50+ seats, NDP 17%- 29. Do we ever need another system of voting. I`ve always thought the parliament was supposed to be a house of representation. No party deserves a majority if they don`t receive over 50% of the vote. That sounds fair doesn`t it?

By the way- with pro-rep life could be wonderful, eh Ronny?

The brain:

You go back to the old thread. Read the link I provided you. Not that I really care anymore. You've proven that you'll not dig too deep to find out the truth.

Non-Working Man, it would appear you need glasses or some remedial reading exercises.

No where did I say the Bloc got 100 percent of the Quebec vote. I stated it got 100 percent of it's vote in Quebec.

How in christ do you bid on projects or manage to even keep am employee if your reading comprehension skills are as bad as you give me reason to think?

Wake up you pathetic compulsive.

Have a toke or two and maybe you'll get distracted enough you'll wander off to the fridge and then forget what you thought you were doing and you won't embarrass yourself here so much.

Again WN. the Bloc all (100percent) of it's vote in Quebec.

"My numbers will stand," an arrogant Vancouver-Point Grey offers in defence of his diatribe about the west being screwed once again.

Sorry fellow, but I doubt you are going to see the day PR of any kind is used to transfer votes right across the country.

Put your European models away, turn your STV reasoning off and try to think rationally rather than worrying about who might be moving into your neighbourhood if the wrong person gets elected.

If you are from Quebec then you'll perhaps understand there are various sensitivities in the province. Then again some people do miss the most obvious things.

There are regional sensitivities in Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, the Maritimes... need I go on?

We are a nation of regions.

Here is a reality. If a party in Alberta has surplus votes do you think Quebec would sit back and have its representatives decided on the basis of the Alberta surplus or vice-versa?

You'll get laughed out of Quebec with that attitude, or maybe you did.

The brand of PR Canada will accept has to reflect regional voting, and to think otherwise is, I think, quite naive, especially from someone who claims to have experienced more than one part of this nation.

Sure your number still stand, but they mean zilch.

I sometimes wonder how people such as yourself ever get it together enough to be living in a high end area. It must be the creme.

Allan, I just find it very ironic when you decided to bold your own grammatical mistake on the very same post you insulted others for not knowing English.

Its is the possessive pronoun; it modifies a noun.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.

Therefore,
WN. the Bloc all (100percent) of it's vote in Quebec.
should be its vote in Quebec... I am not even commenting on plurals here.

Also, your writing can be easily perceived as Bloc won all votes in Quebec. If you fail to communicate properly, it is your own writing problem.

Sometimes I hate these blogs because given the freedom of speech, some people have no respects for others.

It is actually a very easy formula, allan. First, you don't smoke dope. Then you study hard. You get a marketable skill. You get a good job. You save money. You form a stable relationship with another person known as your spouse. You move to a nice neighbourhood.

Most importantly, and I am sure this will be lost on you, allan, you take responsibility for your own actions and if they are mistaken, learn from them.

You see, allan, all anyone really needs to know is learned in kindergarten. If you need something to blame your lack of success from, perhaps you should return.

Now go away or I'll be forced to taunt you a second time....

Brain
A couple of quotes on the effectiveness of the gun registry system.

Internal audits show that government bureaucrats have a 71% error rate in licensing gun owners and a 91% error rate in registering the guns themselves.

> > The government admits it registered 718,414 guns without serial numbers. That means either the bureaucrats forgot to write them down, or the guns didn't have serial numbers in the first place. That's as useless as registering a vehicle simply as "a blue Ford Explorer."

Some 222,911 guns were registered with the same make and serial number as other guns. That's not just useless -- it's dangerous..If someone else with a "Blue Ford Explorer" is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP.

> > Out of 4,114,624 gun registration certificates, 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries -- but the bureaucrats issued them anyways.
In the beginning, the government's firearms licenses had photographs on them - just like driver's licenses do. But after hundreds of gun owners were sent licenses with someone else's photo on them, the government decided to scrap photos on the licenses altogether, rather than fix the problem.

> > Private details about every gun owner in the country are put on one computer database, called CPIC. That's valuable information to a peeping tom -- or a criminal. The CPIC computer has been breached 221 times since the mid-1990s, according to the RCMP.

The government spent $29 million on advertising for the gun registry -- including $4.5 million to Group-Action, the Liberal ad firm now under RCMP investigation.
> >

Kurt
The guy was allowed access to hunting rifles, for hunting through a friend who stored them but apparently never did so. He was not allowed to have any firearms in his house and the guns he did have were unregistered. No police officer trusts the data from the registry, it can not tell you if there are no guns in the house. The CPIC data system can tell them if there is a person with a firearm permit living at that address, so the gun registry becomes moot.

You have to decide where you want to spend the finite amount of money that the government has, if saving lives is the primary consideration, then the 2 billion could have been more effectively used in other program and with more direct results. The registry has nothing to do with saving lives, so what is the point other than control and eventual confiscation.

The firearm licence system and requirement for training and safe storage have been the most effective parts of the firearms Act and other than niggling details that need fixing no one has a problem with that, but when you see pointless waste and political mismanagement that does not result in the declared intent, then it is time to deal with it.

Surely not. There is even a book called, "The Brownshirting of America"." Avicenna.

At back of the Tyee storefront is a pretty anal management crew, redrivergirlt-, whether they come out of actual "official" dictionary usage or not. And interestingly, most of the censorship gets applied to the left.

Try Braunshirt, or if you are feeling really passionate, as in angry or such, try fuk or phuck. There's always more than one way to mess with this anal Yankee puritanical values edited crew. (Obviously the braunshirts/fundamentalists are writing in to Tyee and whining about the bad language and insults they have to endure, and Beers et al are actually sympathizing with their hurt wingnut selves. And why we have so many braunshirts coming in here: Tyee protects them.)

It's one of those contradictions in the management circle of Tyee. They seem to think we are all walking eggshells like them, in need of our tender ears and feelings being protected from harsh reality. Or maybe it impinges upon them reaching the core audience they are really after, in Point Grey, West Van and more genteel class places.

Icometolaugh, obviously minor typos turn you on.

Regardless of your tight-asses view of things, the statement is correct.

The Bloc got all its votes in Quebec.

That's the point pointy head, not typos.

Stay with the issues or you start sounding like the the non-working man, who I see is here quite early.

Oh well, must have been a bad batch you poured yesterday to have you up so unusually early non-working man.

Please do try to taunt me. So far you have only proven you can't keep your excuses straight.

Why isn't everybody here talking about PR meaning we need to change the way the disenfranchised end up with no representation. There is a need for election reform so that everybody who votes can believe that their vote counts.
How about Cons in Alaberta who won every seat, that being where the majority of right won but there was a proportional amount of their citizens have absolutely no represention of their votes.
Same for the Bloc.
The only person to bring this up here is VancouverPointGreen. If what he is saying is that others would also have representation under PR.
See FairVoteCanada.org to see what a PR would have achieved. They also have a petiton going for changing our electoral system which would represent ALL voters in our country. That would be the best thing for our country.
Also, go to hhtp://CathiefromCanada.blogspot.com on a post about CBC. Many of those posting Conservatives dising CBC and are enlightening because the vitrolic conservative bias has begun.

Opps...I meant http://CathieFromCanada.blogspot.com.
Worth a look

Colin' I loved your post on the gun registry.
Another example of the stupid way this country has been run for the last 14 years.
Get the Government out of as much as we can.
They are, and always will be totally incompetent.

Because we've had that debate ad nauseum and I'm not in the mood to argue with Chris, Stuart, Red River Girl etc all over again. Its repetitive. Let's wait till 2009 provincially or until one of the federal parties introduces debate on it.

Gee Ron, I don't lkike your number, it implies that Mulroney ran the country like one of Plato's philosopher-kings.

Here! Here! Frank. It's the about the only thing I disagree with you about. I appreciate your wide knowledge base.

Coyote, it was my first thought too, but now I think it may be the censor for another word, that could be called vulgar, that starts with b and ends with t. I think I went a little overboard. Blush. You are right about the staff getting complaints I'm sure. And, much of the media bends to that pressure for sure!

Ron, you have grandkids. Therefore, you remember very well 'lest we forget' and 'never again'. I was raised on that and that is one reason my fascist antena is finely tuned. It was trained to be that way from an early age. I remember watching reels after reels of footage of the death camps with haunted people, piles of eyeglasses, children's shoes.
Gold fillings taken from the dead bodies. An industry. I was only a little girl watching these 'movies' in school. I remember reading Anne Frank's diary when I was about eight or nine. It left a huge impression on me. She was a little girl, just like I.

Avicenna, Yes, much has been said about the fascistic nature of the B admin. They just created a secret police and of course the wire-tapping scandal as well.
You're right, it could be worse.

Harper just dropped the gauntlet. Can't resist saying I told you so - c/f my post 18 hrs prior to this one!
No surprises.

Sorry Lynn, it's not clear what you mean with your vague generalizations and cliches. Our federal governance over the past 30 years doesn't have much neo-conservatism in it. Much of the damage has been done by socialists masquarading as Liberals.

I just saw Harper's press conference. And, haven't we in BC heard it all before?

Here's an article that talks about it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0124-29.htm

From where I'm sitting only Trudeau might qualify as a socialist masquerading as a Liberal. Mulroney, Chretien and Martin could be called many things but I have trouble equating socialist with any of them.

RRG,

Yes, I had the feeling last time around the STV tree you were on the verge of sticking pins into a little Frankie voodoo doll. Let's avoid the subject and remain friends till 2009 shall we?

Oh, and the pr spin starts right away trying to establish an 'independent from the US' Harper, defending our Arctic against the US. Even while talking yet again about 'defence' military etc. The writing is on the wall folks.

Good idea. Friends til 09. But, no pins. The Irish in me loves to debate, but rarely do I dislike the messenger. :-)

NoLeftNutter: Never said the last thirty years, that's your quote... But Mr. Mulroney, does come to mind...that Irish-American guy masquerading as a Canadian prime minister.

with apologies to the Irish of which, like redrivergirl I am one...didn't see your comment redrivergirl when I posted.

Well Lynn, you did say seeping neo-conservatism. I still say it was Trudeau, Chretien and in the last 5 yesrs, Martin. Creeping socialism, if you ask me.....the state knows better than we do how to manage the beneifts of our own productivity.

That's okay, Lynn. He's Irish in name only. No self-respecting Irish person would be on the side of the colonizers. :-)

It would be in the USA interest to side with Denmark over autonomy of the Artic. Another nation sharing the passage would certainly favor their position that the passage is international waters, and a free for all resource centre.

NoLeftNutter: Do we still have the benefits of our own productivity in this country? Not much left to manage is there? Mulroney's not-so-free trade deal made sure of that.

fealltóir - I think the Irish word for traitor.

Much agree, redrivergirl :-)

Unfortunately Lynn, part of growing up means the value of your goods and services are judged on a global scale. We're fortunate to have plenty of resources to afford one of the world's best lifestyles. Our productivity is being taken from us by every level of government as they bribe taxpayers to stay in power.

NoLeftNutter... just what does a Libitarian do when his house catches on fire? The last one I asked hurt his back and is on EI right now instead of taking out a personal loan to cover his lack of productivity. So I'm not sure if his reply about paying the firefighters individualy or putting it out himself is very acurate.

After listening to Harper's speech, and his utterance 'terrorism', in his first press conference, I wonder if we'll receive our own 'pearl harbour'. It's a very sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

I don't think it would work in Canada. There's an old Scottish saying, in that practical way, that one can only die in one way. If you're hung, your not stabbed and if your stabbed, your not run over by a train etc. In other words, have a wee bit of courage in the face of threat. Canada is like a willow tree as opposed to the oak.

Eddy, can't understand your point. I'm all for public Health Care, Education and worthwhile social programs. No one here has been able to explain why federal government spending has risen 60% since the Liberals ended the deficit and the standard of living of the average Canadian has remained the same. The increase in spending alone is costing the average Canadian household about $7000 more per year. Do you think it's money well spent?

NLN... Gordo recently ran and won an election totally based on the evidence that your standard of living was higher. That premise was backed up by every business organization in the Province. Part of the package was a balanced budget that would not have been balanced without the injection of federal dollars in the form of transfer payments. Your federal tax has been reduced as well as Gordo's 25% reduction. In effect, the feds have paid for Gordo's tax and service cut. So how come you are paying 7000 dollars more per year? Perhaps you should talk to an accountant.

Federal gov't spending has risen 60% in 8 years?

Where'd you get this? I wish to go check it out.

okay NoLeftNutter you quote

Lets get out the crystal ball and play a game called, lets be vague, lets talk about some % thrown out
their and the inner workings of government we know nothing about .

This is the black and white arguments we all love to listen to on CKNW. How can we argue without 1% of the facts in front of us , but lets try with the info we have. You somehow are trying , without any evidence to point out
that the government is incompetent.

Lets lets recap 1) We have a massive country with a very small tax base, compared to the US we have much better social systems and safety nets etc. In fact the government manages to maintain the good standard of living
we have with such a small tax base is remarkable. Ask anyone who visits Canada if they think we are a poor suffering
lot.

Okay lets address increased cost, dust of the crystal ball , maybe this may help.

1) We have a massive aging population ( more CPP, health care costs, etc etc) we could always strip their benefits etc.
2) Inflation ( you know the think that increases cost to everyone) a bottle of COKE used to cost me 45 cents, now its
1.45 , that's inflation.
3) Massive subsidies to big corporations ( biggest welfare bums in Canada live in Alberta) Shell and others have
been paid 7-10 billion in the last 4 yrs of our money.
4) High teck innovation ( most companies have had to upgrade with changing technologies) aka government also.
5) Military spending, we are not in the mid east doing our part. and on and on and on.

P.S , if you want to argue better get some solid facts and examples.

Your honor, this gov seems bad, the % seems wrong, I mean like , I don't really know but it just seems wrong. Mulroney was much better for the country.

"Our productivity is being taken from us by every level of government as they bribe taxpayers to stay in power." arightnutter.

Yeah, Lynn. That cash is need to go into the trough for the corporate welfare nutters of capitalism. Can't be giving services and decent income levels to the working class.

Increase productivity, increase productivity, faster, faster, until the slaves drop. They're easily replaced by machines anyway, or another fresh slave.

You right wing nutters are so goddamned obvious.

Frank - check the federal government site. Program spending in 97/98 was about $102 billion, in 04/05 it was about $160 billion. Stuart your comments indicate some of the increase, but 60%, I don't think so.

In any case if a corporation has to pay more tax where do you think they get the money from?

I think the federal Liberals are incompetent, what sort of evidence are you expecting?

That's it Coyote, let's all work less. the left has always supported a lowest common denominator philosophy. Heaven forbid that I should want to get ahead or be rewarded for accomplishing it.

In Canadian terms things are moving at breakneck speed. The new Liberal leader, temporarily shelved in Washington is heading back to Ottawa in a way that suggests his bags were already packed, if they ever got unnpacked. It seems he may have been picked, or at least put on a shortlist by Chretien and clearly was being groomed by Martin. It is a llittle sickening to see he has been approved by the Bush family consortium (Carlyle) and up to 15 corporations many very large, and yes, would you believe it, the House of Asper. They do know who to snuggle up to, don't they? And as for the rest of us, who shall we see as the next Liberal leader who has not been vetted and approved by the bosses? In his political career he managed to get along with Irving excrescence for 10 years yet still looks civilized. A phenomena.

But given all that he seems to be one very politically smart guy who can send Harper into depressed introspection anytime. He is a true Centrist in the Liberal style and seems to be balanced enough to handle the warring groups among the Liberals with aplomb. He seems to be a quick study of issues as well as people. If his views are second hand they are a reasonable selection.
Most of all the guy talks like he understands the politics of John A. even if he has not yet found the one big vision for a revitalized Liberal party.
I think this guy is head and shoulders above the rest even if he has been pre-approved by our "betters" which, alas, he has. Thaaaats....aaaall folks. Here is our next PM, a couple years down the road. Now let us encourage the pols, all of them who are not part of the Harper rabble, to lodge so many arrows in Harper's hide he will look like St. Sebastien.

I have to wade through the Fed gov't site? Can't you just give me the same link where you saw it?

Anyway, you're using absolute numbers I assume? Not adjusted for inflation? Also, its one big number not adjusted for increased population?

So if a million people moved here in 8 years suddenly the federal gov't is a drunken sailor?

The number you claim as "spending" includes money spent on paying down the debt as well as normal payments on that debt?

Seems to me that the number is useless unless we know what it means. There is just no evidence that that "spending" represents what you're claiming.

I seems that NLN is preoccupied with distortions and lies Frank, a typical tactic of the right. And when he called out on his lies, he deflects and distorts a little more. To wit:

I don't recall Coyote ever making such a statement. Who invited NLN to the adult's table anyway?

The other point, NLN, is that I don't own any real property so a fire department is almost useless to me. As a matter of fact, the very existance of a fire department in a community only helps keep the value of the real estate above reach for many. In effect, a fire department works against me. On the other hand, I don't mind having a fire department around for the benefit of property owners. But if you suggest to homeowners that they start bucking up to protect their property they all cry poverty and claim foul ball. When it comes to real property, the poor really do subsidize the rich. Cest le vie.

Well add to the fact that there's no reason to assume the base year of comparison should be while Martin was taming the deficit left to him by Mulroney. 8-9 years ago wasn't a happy time in most provinces, trying to recover as they were from all the cutbacks.

You're right Frank, these issues are much too complicated to discuss in balck and white. Let's leave in the airy-fariy domain so every thread can be swamped with claims of class warfare, conspiracy theories, the second world war, colinization and the spirit of Ginger Goodwin.

That'll move the dailogue forward....

ubiquitous - I htought that was rational response to Coyote's statement.

Frank - Here you go, do I have to C&P it for you too?

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/afr_e.html

And, sorry on the earlier post that quote was from Stuart.

Eddy, you're still coming out of left field on this. Most of us do own property and happily support the existence of that and many other social services.

Some of us have a hard time with our tax dollars being spent stupidly.

Frank - look it up,you'll see that the increase I keep referring to doesn't include carrying charges on the debt. That's about another $30 billion per year.

That's great NLN. Can you point out where you got your 60% increase in spending figure and how that translates into costing households more that $7000 per year. I took a glance at this paper and got a totally different impression. It's very erroneous when conducting an anaysis of financial statements to limit yourself to just one element of financial position. It's even more erroneous then to take said narrow analysis and attribute it to poor gov't performance. What I saw right of the bat was that revenues (since the deficit was eliminated) have remained constant. At the same time, the percent of expenses to revenue have also remained roughly the same. This measure is far more significant from a purely economic performance standpoint that simple looking at just expenditures. So NLN, do you care to qualify your statements in anyway, or should I just expect some kind of deflection.

That would be nice of you. My "Tyee window" is just one of many on my desktop at work here eh.

But according to the link you gave me, 4.8 billion alone went to debt repayment. That's a pretty big chunk.

I see foreign holdings of our debt is down to only 56.9 billion, gotta be happy with that I would think.

Anyway, is there a particular area you're concerned about because so far it looks like natural increases from inflation and population are causing the increase in absolute numbers. I'm looking for adjusted per capita spending but I don't see it yet.

Also, as I said above, wouldn't 1988 or something be a better year for comparison?

noleftnutter said

Soon you all be mine. (insert evil laughter)

Oh, I think I see. Are you referring to "Program Spending" under table 2 that states that that gov't spent 12.1 billion in 97-98. If so at 60% increase would make spending in 04-05 around 20 billion. Yet the financial statements show program spending to be 12.6 billion in 04-05. Am I looking in the wrong spot NLN?

ubiquitous - sure. As I've mentioned the data shows that government program expenditures were about $100 billion in 97/97 and were about $160 billiion in 04/05. There are rougly 17 million taxpayers in Canada so the increase works out to about $3500 per taxpayer, of which there are two in my household.

Is that the kind of deflection you were expecting? I'm wondering though, how much discussion it makes sense to have about the budgets when you weren't even able to find the comparable data that I've referred to.

You may think the government has performed well depending on how you choose to analyse the information. I think they're spending my money stupidly.

Okay, I went googling and found a few numbers

and

That doesn't strike me as anything to get upset about NLN.

In fact, with the growth in the economy

you'd think spending would have increased even moreso wouldn't you?

So isn't increases post-surplus simply putting money back into a system starved during the deficit fighting era? Therefore shouldn't the base year be pre-cutbacks and not 1997 or 1998?

Sincere apologies NLN: I'm looking at the wrong numbers.

On the strongOntario website they claim that real per capita federal spending has increased just 20% since 2000. They seem pretty pissed about that and claim its undoing all the good work done by the cutbacks in the 1990's.

So that's the take from a right-wing site. 20% increase in real spending is not bad to me at all considering I think the cutbacks in the 1990's were too deep.

In fact, according to a graph on their website

http://www.strongontario.ca/english/whatsnew/scotiabank_report.pdf

2005 spending is still lower than it was in 1993

Ill try to clarify- under the expense ratio graph for the 04/05 year the statment is made -

Some of the site links to other fiancial info aren't working but if you hack around you can find more details.

And according to their provincial transfers graph it seems obvious where the money is going when it leaves the federal account.

So Frank, when the federal government takes the money and transfers it back to buy votes in the Mritimes or Quebec doesn't that piss you off just a little?

NLN, its not the feds getting the credit.

I've argued here in the past that Campbell's surpluses have come from federal transfers according to BC Stats. I just don't think it can be claimed Campbell is a genius while Martin is an idiot when its the same dollars.

Essentially, the Fed numbers are being used to claim program spending to individuals has increased through provincial tranfers whereas Campbell has used that money to be able to cut taxes.

Enjoying this discussion.

This quote is indicitive of my frustration with the federal government. Our economy is doing well, government expenditures are up and the standard of living of the average Canadian is stagnant. As of said before - with all of the incompetence I'd rather have less government than more.

Frank - good point. I don't know how it balances out, only that I see way to many expenditures at every level of government for my taste.

Oh and anyone who wants my source for the previous quotes they come from

http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2005/09/econ_eatpie.php

About as fast and far as the crap you peddle does.

I agree it can be confusing following the money. I prefer to look at the end result, adjusted per capita spending. But even that is wrong since a federal transfer that goes to a corporate tax cut (for example) can look like program spending if one wants it to.

Which of course is your ideology and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think the right has a monopoly on wanting to know where the dollars actually go, not just where its claimed they go.

I think its illuminating that real wages in this country have barely moved in spite of an increase in economic growth of 25%

That kinda sticks in my craw since it means what productivity gains there have been has not at all filtered down to workers nor has it shown up in real social spending.

Frank on the discussion of PR:

I disagree Frank. I think it needs to be an on-going -- ad nauseum, if you will -- discussion.

Why?

Because EVERY DAY we live with the consequences of the stupid existing system.

Why argue with Chris, Stuart, RRG, etc: I challenge them to come up with one (just ONE) reason why FPTP is a fair system. It's not. They can't. Now let's move the discussion on the variants of PR.

You said it, NLN seems to want to have this discussion with no facts or no real evidence of anything. I don't get it, this % really does not prove anything. All it proves is that a certain amount was spent over a certain time, who knows what priorities have changed.

Without a forensic audit we are left making assumptions, maybe unfair assumptions.

And NLN , you are so blind in ideology (hence your name Even) you cannot find common ground
anywhere, I also hate paying taxes, I hate corruption, I hate government wastes but lets get beyond this circle, saying the left is wrong and the right government will be better is very flawed thinking and gets us no where, unless your a scummy political type. Divide and conquer is a well alive

Look, to have a healthy society and culture we need fundamental things like Education, Health Care, a clean environment, a good economy, housing, access to energy , good infrastructure etc, our tax base pays for these things and makes them available threw a shared tax system. Facts the average Canadian pays huge personal taxes (why is this) its because corp. Canada how shifted their
tax Burdon on the backs of the average Canadian, for the last 30 yrs corp. Canada has lowered its tax rate from 42% to 17% take total corp. profits and multiply the difference in tax rates and you get the total tax cut which is now being payed by Canadians.

The biggest 2 parties in Canada have this same ideology and never talk about this, most Canadian blame government but this is wrong headed. Corp Canada now wants less gov oversight and a true free market. (like in the forestry sector in BC where 42 died last year ) The cheap , unregulated and dirty pursuit for short term global profits is killing us ,some points to ponder - You only want less gov because your tax Burdon is high and your afraid to address the issue of corp. governance and the way we run our economy.
2) 70% of all Canadian jobs are provided by small and mid size players, you have nothing to run scared about.
3) Global trade issues and special treatment and subsidies are only for big players and insiders.
4) Your making enemies with the wrong crowd, I have never met a conservative that loves a dirty environment or loves homelessness etc, well maybe Ron Erwin,

P.S , I want to lower your taxes NLN, I think your worth more, do you.

I agree with Dobbin that many voters voted for Harper's Cons not because they like his values/ideology but simply as a route to trashing Martin's tiresome Libs.

It is a similar motivation of rejection of a ruling party that continues to garner Bloc (and now some Cons) votes in Quebec.

In Palestine the same phenomenon just occurred, with terrorist sponsors, Hamas winning a majority in yesterday's election: largely a rejection of a moribund, incompetent, very corrupt Fattah gov't.

************************************
A Note on Polls:

It turned out the most accurate #s came out of CPAC-SES who came closest to predicting the actual election results of a 6% spread between Cons and Libs. CPAC had it at a 7.5% spread while others put it at 10%, or 12%.
Also, CPAC was bang on in predicting the 17%
popular vote of the NDP, and accurately tracked
NDP momentum the last week.
CPAC was also bang on with last minute compelling Lib surge and lead in Atlantic Canada, the strongest region for Libs, as it turned out.
And CPAC-SES never had the absurd spreads Allan Gregg had. Gregg gave Cons/Lib spreads as high as 18% when no one else did! Ipsos too, appeared to exaggerate Cons strength.

Next election, I shall give maximum credence to
SES, and minimal credence to Ipsos polls, and most especially to Allan Gregg's shameless, misleading Strategic Counsel propaganda machine
masquerading as a polling firm!

I understand Coyote I really do. The Tyee is no place for facts, logic or rational thought. Let's just go online and spew at each other.

I am for a new voting system, MMP proportional representation , not STV sexual transmitted vote.

The whole STV thing was a stunt and almost a massive injustice. It was the most confusing ,unpopular and the last choice of the people, of course this is the one we voted on.

Stuart - take a breath. I'm not as idealogically stuck as you seem to think. I've spent lot's of my time here providing facts, sorry that you can't or choose not to use them.

As for audits, it seems everytime the Auditor General looks at the books there's more waste and abuse. How much is enough?

I'll ask the question again because you seem idealcally stuck on the issue of Corporate tax rates - Where do you think the money comes from when corporations pay taxes?

On election night I had high hopes that either the Cons or the NDP would win 3 more seats. I didn't even care which. Unfortunately the Libs had their best showing in BC in decades, in spite of finishing third.

The Cons and NDP could have got together and worked on the one thing they agree on above all else, that we need a better system where the Libs don't get to rule all the time.

But we're a few seats short. And you know the Libs and Bloc will block anything that will lower their seat counts.

So since it can't happen anyway unless someone crosses the floor, why bother arguing with people who are usually on the same side as me?

Stuart on PR, STV, MMP, and FPTP:

The whole STV thing was a stunt and almost a massive injustice. It was the most confusing ,unpopular and the last choice of the people, of course this is the one we voted on.

Now you see Frank, you needn't argue with Stuart anymore. Clearly, he's one more "vote" in favor of PR.

Like I said, let's turn our attention to the implementation of PR and our discussion to which variant makes sense.

Please, let's not lose sight of the enemy: FPTP.

FPTP is not the enemy. Corruption and big money lobby groups are. Lack of real accountability for MPs is a huge issue as well.

I am not adverse to federal PR per se. My first test is will it make it easier to commit fraud as STV does? If so, it automatically isn't the right one.

I am not open to it provincially until we can restore the biased laws to benefit corporations at the expense of individuals that Campbell etal enacted. Then, sure, let's decide on a fair one and I'll vote for it.

But, I will bow out for now. I just didn't want my viewpoint misrepresented.

asks, NLN.

This is not what it is doing. It is in fact feeding all ten of the kids and their two cousins during dinner, rather than starving three to death.

RRG - any of those kids or cousins spend their days down at the pool hall? Particularly those ones that belong to Quebec ad agencies.....

The Citizens Assembly, a randomly selected group of BC citizens spent many months evaluating voting systems. By all accounts they took their job very seriously and were dedicated to coming up with the fairest system they could.

STV has both pros and cons but it was decided on in a democratic fashion as being the best among imperfect choices.

Political parties don't like STV because STV places more power in the hands of the people than other forms of p.r. would, in selecting
candidates.

Our citizens assembly folks put much more thought, energy, and dedication into evaluating voting systems than probably any of the armchair opiners on this thread have done or are ever likely to do.

Their choice of STV on our behalf should not, then, be casually sloughed off. Fortunately, next time around the BC gov't pledges to actually finance yes and no sides for information campaigns, so hopefully the public will have a better understanding of STV, both pros and cons.

NLN, I found this. It was written after the bad water fiasco in Northern Ontario came to light. Another example of an increase in absolute terms but which is actually a decline in real spending.

During those five years, consumer prices grew by 13 percent. And the First Nations population grew by close to 20 percent. In inflation-adjusted, per capita terms, DIAND funding declined by over 10 percent in 5 years. No wonder on-reserve schools and health centres can't provide comparable services to the ones that other Canadians get to use.

The First Nations population grew by 20% in just 5 years? I thought that was pretty interesting since its far and above the non-immigration increases in the rest of the population.

And as the quote below says, non-native populations also recieve gov't subsidies from municipal and provincial levels whereas natives are a fed responsibility.

I would say a population that is growing that fast and has such lousy economic outcomes is a recipe for huge problems ahead.

Don't get me started on First Nations. If I remember correctly the transfers to bands are about double per capita then the rest of Canada and I can't believe there is no scrutiny allowed....deplorable.

Whether tax moneies collected is wasted is a different argument of course from the one that says we're over-taxed. On the other side of that are these quotes from Jim Stanford of the CAW published in the Globe and Mail.

Surprized by the number of $4.9 billion in 2004. I understood the total to be more like $7 billion.

Yes I know, its always a hot topic. I just think that we need some policy changes on that front. Perhaps the Kelowna Accord moves in this direction? I'm still waiting to hear if the Cons will okay it. As I posted 2 weeks ago, Jim Prentice and Monte Solberg seemed to disagree on whether they would.

I think the quote says most funding comes thru Indian Affairs but not all. That could account for the difference.

I would also like to add that I'm disappointed to see the Hudson's Bay Company, which has been around since 1670 and employed Canadiennes like Radisson and Groseilliers, pass into the hands of US owners.

I blame Mulroney for dismantling FIRA.

You may not remember of course, Frank, but I have been pointing this out every so often since Tyee opened its doors. This braunshirters seem to have no friggin' idea of what is developing here, and what the pissed off reaction of so many folks is likely to be after such a long history of being fuched around-, and as white population levels tank. (And after immigrant populations arrive here, they typically follow the earlier white immigrant population reproduction trends, more preoccupied with pursuing capitalist style "prosperity" than viable population levels. I used to have the stats at my memory's tips, but find 'em yourselves. They're out there.)

Natives have the highest reproduction rates in the country, have for quite awhile now, and good on them says I, that's not a put down, they've had a lot and a long ways to come back from. But there's a day of reckoning out there you braunshirt fuchs, and your current Neocon direction of development is only going to make it heavier when it finally arrives.

Coyote, I think its a bigger problem on the prairies than anywhere else but it does seem like a ticking time bomb.

from

http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/007036.asp

And, I suppose so many native people in jail has nothing to do with racism?

If Canada paid each Native person a reasonable settlement for the appropriation of their land each First Nations person would be a multi-millionaire.

When this land was 'settled' Native people couldn't vote and couldn't own property. So tell me again how Canada does not owe First Nations people restitution and direct compensation?

A good portion of dysfunction within First Nation families that contributes to that stereotype, who are dysfunctional (because many are not and are citizens who contribute a lot to Canada including taxes)are that way because the gov't decided to break up their families and steal their children! This created a breakdown in family structure that Canada has a responsibility to redress. That is why money is directed to their communities.

I guess none of we contributers to the tyee are First Nations, eh?

Bah.

...contributors

To be clearer, when those children were stolen and then abused as many were, instead of being in a healthy family/community structure, a collective wound was inflicted by Canada.

Well I would think racism plays a part. I think that's obvious from the cases of native men being left to freeze to death after being dropped outside of town by Sask police. And certainly there is a lot of racism towards natives in Sask, at least it seemed to me there was including by those I considered friends.

But lack of economic opportunity also plays a big part.

"Now you see Frank, you needn't argue with Stuart anymore. Clearly, he's one more "vote" in favor of PR."

I have not, and never had, a problem with PR as well. Indeed, I would love to see some sort of PR implemented. However, STV is not a proportional representation voting system. There is no mechanism in STV that ensures proportionality. STV produces results on average that are more proportional than FPTP, but that is it. To top it off, STV is so complicated there are few people around who actually understand it. I, for one, am tired of explaining how the gregory method of transfering votes works to misguided proponents. STV was brought forward, I believe, because the "teacher" of the Citizen's Assembly had already decided it was the best system. That is what happens when you put the Fraser Institute in charge: they know what result they want to achieve.

Most people are frustrated to some degree with FPTP, and would love to see some sort of PR. However, whatever system we pick should be easily understood by the average voter. If FPTP has anything going for it, it is that. There is your one reason.

Harper may be PM, but the winner is left-wing Canada.
Should have voted NDP....eh?

Chris H:

Fantastic! Another "vote" in favor. A few drops at a time, and soon we'll have a tidal wave.

It's a good thing!

Redrivergirl

Canada has been paying lots of money to FN bands, the problem has been that it has not trickled down in a fair manner. The native culture was almost completely destroyed and only started to turn around in my generation (used to have the pleasure of drinking coffee with Bill Reid on occasion). With their cultural base in disarray, no oversight and lots of money, it was a recipe for disaster and we are reaping what was sowed for the last 50 years.

However things are changing, treaties have been signed, off reserve voting was introduced, the role of woman on reserves has been improved, many bands have formed economic enterprises that allow them to compete and realize benefits on their reserves and traditional territory. Some bands are doing very well, others are off to a good start and some are still the cesspools they were 20 years ago.

Most bands are small and the leadership is divided between the heridarty chiefs, councils of the elders and elected band councils. These groups often do not get along and have diverse opinions on the direction to go. Added into this mix is the family politics and nepotism (hard to avoid in small villages). Native politics can be downright ugly and there have been a few clashes between competing bands that have almost lead to gunfights.

From my perspective it seem that the West Coast bands seem to some of the most proactive in the country, while the prairie bands seem to be some of the most screwed up and inactive. The Central Canada bands seem to suffer the highest from native organized crime issues (smuggling and drugs). I am not to familiar with the situation on the East Coast, other than the fishing disputes.

INAC and the way governments have treated bands have also lead to lots of problems and needs to be overhauled with both more responsibility and accountability being handed to the FN leadership.

The good news is that most large companies operating in the North of BC, take the FN’s very seriously (thanks to the courts) and are often ahead of the government when it comes to consultations and mitigation agreements. Also The FN’s are getting tired of NGO’s claiming to represent their interests. As can be seen in this link, I also have had various FN leaders tell me the same views about some of the environmentalist groups

http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/nor-hearings-pipe-25012006.html

That FN’s are not capable of handling their own affairs is a myth, as is the “keepers of the land” image. They are human beings and subject to all of the good and the bad as the rest of us.

Bobb999

15 hand picked members of the citizens assemble choose the least popular choice of voting systems from the public submissions they had which is the only measure of democracy or public will they had.

In short.

1) They ignored the will of the people, they choose the 4th choice, maybe they used STV to choose STV
2) They choose a confusing system, one that would require electronic voting machines like the US
3) They choose a system that would have massive unrepresented rural ridings.
4) The question should not be how many voted STV , it should be why we choose STV against
all other better more popular options like MMP.

OH and NLN, we work and provide wealth to companies via our hard work, they get taxed on the wealth we make for them, we also get taxed on the wealth we earn. Companies have just shifted the tax Burdon. You answer
my question how did all Canadians survive when corp. paid their fair share and we paid less. In short , we make much less and pay more for it. Less gov just makes corp less accountable via our forestry industry today

NLN... what I'm saying is that I don't cherry pick the social programs. You benefit from social spending so don't deny others your support. I don't really care if there are not enough roads to keep Wal-Mart happy, yet I am asked to support their business with wider roads to accomodate them. You claim that we should reap the benefits of our own hard work, yet it takes a community to create the trade that you get your bread and butter from. So we work together. And we pay together. So go live in the sticks by yourself and live up to your guanno about how hard done by you are from all this taxation. Your standard of living has increased in the last ten years and government spending is a main factor.

Stuart:

I'm sure you are right that some other p.r. systems were more popular among certain submitters
- political party types for instance, such as Adrian Carr who preferred systems that give max. power to the party executives in choosing candidate slates.

Perhaps the citizens assembly were among the least agenda driven of people involved, their mandate being to best and fairest system FOR THE CITIZENS, not the special interests.

Next time around, let the no and yes sides be properly funded for BCers to be better informed. If rural voters believe STV is way to unfair to them, they'll have the opp to vote it down!
*******************************************

Burgess has planted the idea of travelling eastward in my head, and so, as I'm ready for a break, I am off to partake of some opium dens deep in the jungles of Laos (No pipedream!).

Cheerio.

Man, I must need a break...so many typos in my last post. My brain's going mushy...

Colin:

There, in a nutshell, is the dilemma. To a large extent, the influence of hereditary chiefs and elders is feudal (ditto the Canadian Senate). For just one simple insight into this feudal nightmare, ask a FN friend how housing is allocated on band lands. While there may be fair and equitable examples out there, by and large, housing is subject to the kind of nepotism Colin mentions.

I'd like to add to that, the lack of a critical media (OK, OK, I know that we, in the non-native society, can hardly extol the virtues of our press). You'd be hard pressed to find newsletters, never mind newspapers, written for and by FN people, that cast a critical eye on FN politics.

As I small "L" liberal, I find myself in a quandary. On the one hand, I'm reluctant to impose my value system on others. On the other hand (and likely the hand that wins), I think democracy for all citizens is a "greater value" than maintaining feudal-like adherence to "hereditary" systems of power allocation.

In the end, it's all about who has versus who deserves the POWER.

Well, I've seen PR in action, and it makes something else appear: a party list chosen by insiders, the party "center", with zero input by the public. There were many who all their political lives owed their position to their ability to game the party machine (generally on the right by handing out bribes, on the left by mouthing the popular platitudes) and negotiate between parties.

As a Canadian, I've always cherished the right to throw out a parachute candidate or a corrupt one. For those on the right, think that Svend would still be in parliament. For those on the left, Mulrooney would still be leader of the oposition. Does anyone still think that PR is a jewel waiting to be found?

R. Smiley

Grub

I do believe that this generation of Native Canadian will be quite unlike the previous generations, the slow but steady growth of internet access and the building of a cultural identity will give them the base and the ability to criticize and communicate, they will blend parts of their world and ours to create something that is distinct. A good indication is how their art is transforming from the traditional to a modern fusion and with lots of innovation. I see it in the eyes of the 20-30 year olds who have ideas that they want to try and stuff they want to try. There is a lot of heartache out there, but as more role model emerge it will help reduce the numbers that are lost to booze and drugs.

However HIV is a growing threat for them and fetal alcohol syndrome continues to cast a shadow.

ripponfalls:

While that may be inherent in some forms of PR, I'm not sure I see that as quite the evil you do.

There are alternate PR systems which would choose MPs from the "best of the losing candidates" to make up the appropriate degree of proportionality. Theoretically (I'm just going from my memory of election night results), Weston, who barely lost in West Vancouver, would get a seat as part of whatever number of seats it takes to make up the Conservatives proportion. Ditto for close second (or even 3rd) place finishers from other parties.

I'm not suggesting that as my ideal solution, but simply as an alternative that might address your fear of party lists.

I've said all along that the money that corporations pay for taxes comes from their shareholders, employees or customers. When you ask companies to pay more tax you are shifting the burden to one of those 3 groups. My question is, which one and why?

That's too simplistic. To support every social program that everyone claims to want simply puts us in socialist nirvana - the government takes 99% of everybody's productivity and then an elite group doles it out as they see fit. I am all in favour of making hard choices about which social programs make sense. How do you feel about Adrienne Calrkson's $41 Million per year party fund?

Frank, could you please not refer to us seafarers as drunken. We are, by and large, sober now and are as financially prudent as any other sector of society.

I have no problem with adjusting the tax system so that all income is taxed equally, whether it comes from work for pay, investment, or corporate earnings. The problem with the current arrangement is that a capital gain and some kinds of investment income is taxed at a different rate than personal income. No problem with eliminating double taxation on corporate earnings either, but such a plan needs to be structured so corporations are forced to pass on their earnings to the shareholders and not hang onto them to avoid tax. I don't think that's socialism - it's just good sense.

BC Mary said "...and that's without even mentioning the sad story of his BC minions, Basi, Virk, and Basi"

Cut the rhetoric, Mary. The BC Liberal Party is in no way associated with the federal party of the same name.

.

Just had to correct that one. I'm on the email lists of the Liberals, the Cons and the NDP (don't ask how/why). Believe me, I received quite a few emails from BC Liberals during the federal election campaign, stumping for their federal bretheren.

Campbell's Liberals are simply conveniently named, liberal in name only, and operating as conservatives (as are the federal Liberals). Nice trick, eh? But, hey it works.

Poor old Murray. Still stuck in his `left versus right` rhetoric. So tired.

Just so super to finally have a real family in 24 Sussex. One that knows what it is to have a mortgate, kids to educate and get to hockey practise. Just like the rest of us.

Here`s to Canada!!!!

They say Steven Harper is untraveled, never been around too much. Must be stuck in Alberta mentality.
This guy has probably never earned much money to afford to do this.
He is not a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
I don't know how he has spent his summer vacation with his family, but I suspect it's not unlike how any of us have done so.
Don't fear this man.
He went to a Public Hospital last night for a minor affliction.
He showed us there, that he is a very smart man.
Do not underestimate his IQ and street smart attitude to move Canada forward.

I do wish Mr. Harper well. But 38% is not a majority so I hope that he shows respect for the 62% that didn`t vote for him.

Maxwell said:

I don't know too many parents who shake their young children's hands when they drop them off at school the way Harper did the day after the election. Just like the rest of us!?!? I think not.

God bless amer...uh...Canada!

I don't think cameras should be following Harper and his kids to school. As if kids don't have enough peer issues to deal with.

As for Harper, he hasn't done anything bad yet and I liked his comments directed towards the US on the subject of the arctic. He was responding to the US ambassador and he wasn't even asked a question on it.

Hmm. STV debate in process...

"STV thing was a stunt and almost a massive injustice. It was the most confusing ,unpopular and the last choice of the people." ... Stuart.

"My first test is will it make it easier to commit fraud as STV does".. Red River Girl.

" STV is not a proportional representation voting system.".. Chris H.

Haven't we been throught these all be for, debunked them. Can you convince Stuart that not everything is a conspiracy theory, and that quantity of submissions to the CA doesn't equate to quality of submissions. Is there any use trying. Can you convince technophobes that there are ways to have auditable electronic voting systems, such as the ones we use in Vancouver for are municiple elections. And can you convince Chris that even though STV's results look like PR, smell like PR, and probably taste like PR, and the system is classified as a PR system in basically every political science textbook, that candidate centric systems are as representative as party proportional systems.

Blah. But what is best for BC isn't necessarily what is best for Canada. Canada has two houses to work with, has different jurisdictional areas (federal have less riding specific issues and more macro resolution issues), and needs its own custom blend.

Does it require replacing our out of touch and unelected Senate with a party proportional system (consisting, again of unelected reps) or an STV system while bringing an alternative voting system to constituency elections. Such as Australia. Would MMP work such as Germany, and would we in turn go towards an elected head of state? OR do we look at Ireland, where they use STV for the constituency and have their Senate appointed for shorter terms by representatives of various groups including Universities.

I voted for the N.D.P. confident they would end up with at least 35 seats, then build on from there, but as were all aware, it was not to be, this election should have been their jumping off point for bigger gains in the house.
I believe it was Frank and Working man who made predictions of 25 seats for the NDP, in addition they pointed out their lack of seat gains since 1962, in short they have reached their pinnacle.
.I must concur with them. Therefore, knowing the N.D.P. are a lame duck , its time to change ducks. There is only one party that can end THIS CULTURE OF ENTITLEMENT and that is the Conservatives

- so 58% is not the will of the people anymore?

- actaully, if you had researched STV you would know that the proposed system actually guaranteed that paper ballots be used for full accountability, unlike the present system, where there is no such law.

How is that? There would have been the same # of representatives per person as there was before. Actaully, if you were mathematically inclined you would realize that it would do the opposite.

So, if right now in one riding it takes about 33% out of about votes to be elected that would mean that a single riding would need to be 33% rural to be able to directly elect a representative.

Take 3 ridings and add them together to elect 3 representatives. For simplicity sake, for those who have problems with multiplication and division, lets say each riding has 10 urban and 5 rural voters(to give the rurals that 33% that they need to be influetial). Add them together and we have 45 voters, 15 of whom are rural. The quota (# of valid votes/# of MLA's in riding +1) +1 in this case is about 12. So the rurals have gone from needing at least 5 per riding area, to just an average of just 4 per area because they are able to pool thier votes accross a broader geographic area.

That is one of the advantages of electing the same amount of total reps from larger electoral districts is that it pools minority votes.

And look at the ridings we have now, they hardly help out the 'rural' folks. Kamloops dominates two interior ridings, PG dominates 3! Thats 5 large interior ridings where if the rural vote was pitted directly against the city vote the rurals wouldn't have a chance. Actually, in both Kamloops ridings the rural areas largely voted NDP and the affluent city areas were easily able to dictate the result. If the PG ridings became on big riding all of those rural votes would be able to work together to elect one of the three representatives.

List MMP was rejected because it gives political parties the right to appoint MLAs! So you would have a large section of MLA's who are not accountable to anyone but thier party. What is so hard to understand about how terrible and corrosive to the democratic process that would be?

It makes me sick to even think about it.

MMP is not more popular. Present one fact to back that up. MMP got trashed in PEI for precisely the reason I detailed above.

It is a non-starter.

None of this matters anyways, if those who voted yes do again, and its assumed they will, the demographic shift over next few years will push STV over the top anyways.

Good luck with that list MMP thing, you might want to chat with a few PEIslanders to see how well thats bound to go.

Sorry to say SES ran their election polling like a Vancouver penny stock. They ended up okay but their numbers were ridiculous. 26%-42% over less than two months.

We were the only polling firm dead on from front to back. Everyone likes to cheer their own, but the facts are the roller coast ride that is MSM polling is not to be believed.

To properly assess this look at regional numbers. For instance some of these firms including SES has Conservatives at anywhere from 24-44% in BC. The West barely moves the national totals. Every 1% of Ontario totals is .35% nationally, and Quebec similarly is .25%.

Please check ROBBINS I, II, III including undecided to see how tight polling can truly be.

I think Dobbin is right but I don't believe it is purely ideological as he say it is. Ontario with 106- seats wants to broker the power. Quebec is well Quebec.

If Harper is NOT Reform, but governs for the entire nation and Mr. Dobbin is correct, Quebec is left moderate, and Ontario is Liberal than he must be moderate. If he can do this and implement programs that still define his party and his leadership he can move forward with seats.

If he flounders or is confused by incongruences between his caucus and the Canadian realities that Mr. Dobbins describes we will know fairly quickly and I am certain the media and the population will pounce.

Unless he really underperforms he will stay in the hunt, particularly because Quebec will maintain a hangover against the Liberals.

The entire point of the last two weeks of the election as we hinted at in our Mega polls was to begin to erase the Bloc's hold on Quebec.

For this the mainstream pollsters can be forgiven, because they managed to place both Liberal and Conservatives with footholds in that province, when fear of Bloc absolution threatened.

If accuracy is the litmus test, we get that hands down. If Canadian unity is the test, than all the polling companies did one helluva good job.

If the Cons were in power for 13 years they'd believe they were entitled to their entitlements too. Their last turn at the trough wasn't exactly the epitome of honesty and integrity.

I'm also under no illusion that 13 years of NDP government wouldn't create the same problems.

Maybe the answer is term limits although some people are worth electing again.

I thought so too when the Gomery findings were first coming out but the Cdn public forgave the Libs pretty fast. The NDP can't make any real gains as long as the Liberal party remains strong.

The only answer is a form of PR at the federal level. I think the NDP would do very well under PR and perhaps even win an election down the road given similar conditions.

With the multitude of choices (please don't pretend

Part of the reason I knew something was up with STV - that is before Preston Manning went stumping for it - was the writings fromt Greens and Citizen Assembly memebers on forums.

With the multitude of selections and please don't pretend there would only be the few given as an example there would be no way to track individual choices in a sane and clear way. There would be no reliable exit poll to show who won.

The ridings would be too large for any community accountability. At least in some ridings the BC Liberals had to run from their constituents and dive into their cars to get away from the public's annoyance!

STV's selection was obviously flawed as Fair Vote Ontario made reference to when drafting their own criteria. It was slanted and biased without a doubt. In spite of what the very active lobbiers for STV try to claim. The Fraser Institutes's grubby little hands were all over it.

And the assembly's suggestions were just that. The gov't was under no obligation to follow through with paper ballots which I am highly doubt were recommended as I've argued on other sites with apparent citizen assembly members none of whom mentioned them when I repeatedly raise the increased opportunity for fraud. Perhaps the 'recommendation' was added later to alay some concerns. Again, there is nothing to ensure it happens.

Finally, STV does not one darn thing to fix what is really wrong in our system and that is powerful lobby groups and big money buying off our politicians combined with lax rules about gifts including CEO and consulting positions that are a buy off and conflict of interest.

Because I don't belong to a fringe party that cares more about their own political gain than the country, or province in the case of MS Carr who actually went on tv and said there is no difference between the NDP and the BC Liberals, and because I am not an old socred who wants the ridings slanted to ensure I'll always be the dominant power structure in this province, STV stinks to me.

were the writings, not was...

This subject annoys me to no end because of the obvious duplicity involved and the attempts take away my democratic right through subterfuge.

I'm not an NDP although they do have my vote firmly given at this timebecause they seem to be the best for us, I've even voted Green before, but the actions of the Greens the last few years, just as seen from an outside observer, should at least give some of you pause to consider what the heck you are doing!

In other words the Greens are not responding the biggest crisis Canada and British Columbia has ever seen. Perhaps that which has made them incapable of grasping the most important issue, is that which impedes them from gaining a seat.

Rather than self-examining it seems they are going to push a bad pr system on the rest of us just to get a few seats regardless of the damage that system will do.

That's how it looks to this outsider anyway.

And another thing about the 58 %. It was part protest about the prior four years under Campbell, and part response to a very poor information campaign, including deliberate suspect pushing of STV by both the Fraser Institute pals and the Greens.

Only yes info was at the polls for pete's sake. What a disgrace.

Preston Manning was on CKNW saying you should vote for STV because Toronto and the East think you're too stupid to figure it out!

Don't you right wingers know they laugh at you their supporters!

The NDP do have good and honorable intentions but that in its self will not make any further inroads into Canadian federal politics simply because the liberals have set up such an artificial aura of dependence in and around Ottawa ,the 905 area , and the Atlantic provinces.
To be blunt and straight foreword the Liberals have been buying, creating an artificial financial dependance onto themselves for 30-40 years, so much so that these areas think that without the Liberals they will not survive and they( the liberals) are their only salvation, in other word this has cult status these people are programed, bought and paid for with our money.

I agree, and they never will, due to the reasons have stated above.

I supppose you could, Dan Grice, if Diebold and his brother's company in the US wasn't in such trouble right now.

bradsblog.com

And, in Vancouver elections there were also paper ballots that could be manually counted if there was a problem.

Any voting system that doesn't give opportunity for a clear hand count is no democratic system at all.

In this day, when democracy is under attack, we need to strengthen those tenuous threads not sever them.

The neo-cons want to privatize elections too as they have done to predictably disastrous results in parts of the US. google Accenture elections.

IF you want to lose your democracy go for reduced accountability. Like STV.

Sorry wrong link.

http://www.bradblog.com

Maybe the answer is term limits although some people are worth electing again.: Frank.

Indeed, true for any government. Which is why, I think, it is so important to enhance public accountability and control of State governance, it is so important to get at the further expanding and addition of content to the meaning of democracy itself. Which suffers from a certain shallow triteness, or of being a nearly meaningless hperbole claim.

Especially needed are new forms of public opportunities to participate, and access to a wider range of political and economic thinking. Which much rests upon the opportunity for wider and more varied ideas and voices to secure representation within parliaments (Fed and Provincial), AND, no less, on extending democracy into all the systems of planning, governance, ownership and management over, at least, the major corporate/larger insitutions of the economy. I think it needs to be recognized, even more than it already is, that ownership and control over the economy and the production of goods and services, and the production of culture ( including consumer-culture) that goes on there, is a major veto/controlling component over all other levels of democracy and policy. He who controls the purse strings controls the family, is as much true applied to the national State. It is time to open up and democratize ownership and governance of the economy, and to begin to curtail elite dominance there.

And I suggest this is so, because though there is an "instinctive" public knowledge of the reality, not yet enough brought forward into a wider public consciousness, that the NDP is really much just a "kind of" Liberal Party itself. Indeed, the NDP is much another "Liberal Party In Waiting", which lives for the day when, presumably/hopefully, the main Liberal Party implodes itself irretrievably.

Certainly it is much removed from its more radical CCF roots, and has been part of the general movement rightward within capitalist style politics since nearly the early initiation of the neoconservative trend that came out of changing post WW2 ruling class politics, manifest since the time of Margaret Thatcher, Ronnie Raygun, and the what was called, strangely to me, the neo-liberal Friedman School of Economic thinking, with its "trickle down" assumptions, long since clearlyt proven false. (I would be interested to hear Fait Lux's take on this latter point.)

My own view is that we are in a transition period within capitalism, much destined to reshape political and economic thinking all along the "spectrum line" as much as within the economy and State practice. It's why I am convinced, though it may not "soon" occur, that those of us of a more "radical-left" view are about to be brought in from the ideas wilderness, in which we have been languishing, forced to modify and sharpen our analysis of status quo "advanced" capitalist society. There is emerging out of the general movement of all to the right, and the great collaboration gathered around the centre, for a different and more radicalized "popular/populist" socially transformative ideas set, to break up that Great Bland, challenge it, and open up new opportunites and options for a quite different model for change from that of the Neoconservatives. (I mean, for how long and how seriously can these Erwinesque, damn everybody but the rich and powerful, follow the US Empire into the sunset, and blow them at their request types be taken seriously, by any even pretentiously rational society? The extra-ordinary popular delusions and madnesses of crowds can go on for an extended time sometimes, no doubt, but eventually the bubble does burst. Applicable to both left and right bubbles.)

Woody, my interest isn't whether the NDP do 'better', it is what is the best for Canada and for me that means the clearest system that guards against fraud and is the most accountable. And strong laws with stiff penalties for influence peddling etc. One reason I am totally against parachute candidates is the whole fptp system depends on candidates who live in the riding and must face their constituents, or it becomes farcical.

Does better, not do better. So many typos and gaps of words/letters. Sorry.

"And can you convince Chris that even though STV's results look like PR, smell like PR, and probably taste like PR, and the system is classified as a PR system in basically every political science textbook, that candidate centric systems are as representative as party proportional systems."

Probably not, since STV has a chance of having a result that is less proportional than FPTP.

Maybe I've got just way too cynical but anything that calls itself, Fair Vote Whatever, makes me immediately suspicious...just like the Fraser Institute ain't no institute but it certainly sounds official and oh-so-scientific.

Anyway, think I'll wade out of the STV debate for now...there is a very interesting article posted on Friday on the CBC website by the chairman of one of those infamous right wing think tanks called The Free Congress Foundation (hmmmm...note the use of the word "Free"...a dead giveaway). :-)

I highly recommend reading this (there is an external link to the right of this article to this think tank's website and a more detailed view of the intense interest the US neo-conservatives are taking in the election of Steven Harper especially in regards to how he will change our court system to dismantle what the author refers to as Canada's cultural marxism. (remind you of anybody?)

Harper and his Calgary School are planning to look as innocuous as possible in their debut performance...Canada needs to stand on guard for the clever manipulations taking place in the dimmed lights far off center stage:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/27/weyrich-harper060127.html

RedRiverGirl said:

Other than being the only party that does not accept donations from unions and corperations? And don't bring up that we got a donation from the owner of Ballard Power systems, the NDP had 10 years to fix the system and they did nothing.

Its easy to get on your high horse when you are a supporter of a party that was built on union dues, but you cannot deny that it is at the very least a tad bit hypocritical.

As for STV being 'too complicated' and somehow less accountable than any other voting system, ya'll might want to get out your kids multiplication and division cards... its that hard! What is the point of a public education system if the press and governmental systems are going to be tailor made for a Grade 3 education?

I'm not sure how the critics of STV can convince anyone that it is a bad idea when they can't manage enough math to back up thier arguments and deliberatly distort the facts.

Just throwing out arguments like, the Fraser Institute and the Green Party like it... it must be bad, lowers the debate to a base propaganda war devoid of facts and an actual analysis of the options.

Bud Smith, a Socred if there ever was one, was strongly opposed to BC-STV. Adrienne Carr was opposed to it too, so what? It is meaningless to judge a voting system on the basis of so-and-so's political affiliation, I'm sure you can do better.

And even better, your pal in the NO camp, Bud Smith....

Is a contributing author to none other than the Fraser Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/author.asp?id=138

dangrice:

Astute and valuable observations. The key remains, however, to keep PR and all its variants on the front burner. If enough PR advocates keep talking about it, eventually the politicians will take notice and take action.

deja:

I voted for STV or, rather, against FPTP. As far as I was concerned, it was a case of "anything but FPTP."

Having said that, I don't think MMP is as "corrosive to the democratic process" as you seem to imply. It hasn't been in Germany, for example.

I can think of several reasons why having lists might lead to better government.

First, I'm not so sure I want my MP to also be my PM. Somehow I can't see my PM at a high-level conference in Wasgington saying, "Hey, W, hold on a sec, I've got to take a call from grub, up in my constituency; he's got some pension problem he needs his MP to sort out for him."

Second, my PM (and other ministers) need to take a global view of national issues whereas there are times when my MP needs to advocate a very paroochial view of things. An MP as PM presents some very clear conflicts of interest. A PM, selected from the party list (that is, the party leader, being top of the party list) makes obvious sense to me.

Third, a party list allows people, clearly unsuited to the cut and thrust of constituency politicking, but clever as policy wonks, to serve their country through their inclusion on the party lists. Were it not for safe ridings like those around Calgary, it's doubtful if Harper could ever get elected; he being one of those policy-wonk-baby-kissing-inhibited types. Party lists save us from "important" party personages being parachuted into ridings.

And, as I've said elsewhere on Tyee, my MP could be a monkey, for all I care. I care about the legislation that is enacted and am thus more inclined to vote for the party than for the individual.

redrivergirl

Agreed!

Deja, I don't even know who Bud Smith is.

Secondly, I don't buy into the idea that unions, which have made everyone life better including your own, are bad.

Lastly, a system that is too complex to grasp regardless of whether that makes us mathematically illiterate, and oh so dumb, is not a system that is accessible and thus should never have gotten past the first round of examination in the CA. That is of course, if it really was, either an impartial assembly, or one not interfered with, which obviously it was not. And, considering the whole process was designed by Nick Loen or however that old Socred and Fraser Institute contributor' name is spelled, it isn't a great suprise.

Lynn, I'll go read the link.