Rafe

Shame on you for claiming the media (and their polls) and the political ads have any clout. If you believed the polls, your the foolish one, the ads on either side did not make any difference.

This election was decided the day the writ was dropped. Minority government was predicted at the time and that is what we got. Did you actually expect a Harper - Martin battle to settle anything? Both lack the vision, charisma, and experience to sway entrenched voters.

The winners in this election are the Canadian people. The Liberals got slapped down, that is all that really matters. Harper got his new driver permit, so he gets to do the driving for a while, but not alone.

Canadians wanted a minority parliament last-time, they wanted it again this time, and voted for it. I don't think most Canadians trust ANY national politicians to have an absolute powers these days. It may be a very long time before we see another majority government, and for good reason. Both majority governing parties Liberal and Lazarus-like Conservatives so aggressively screwed the pooch in the past and in doing so offended at least 60% of the electorate.

All the parties will have to work together to govern, it is not a big deal that Harper is the figurehead of a minority government. I suspect he will handle it better than Martin but as for his cabinet... that remains to be seen.

Real electoral & parliamentary reform may be at hand because if the government is to function all the parties are going to have to do things differently. Minorities Rule. Majorities Suck. If you have a good idea you had better be able to sell it to opposition. I for one, was damn tired of having any ruling party pull out policy out of it's butt because it could, not because it was actually good.

If the NDP, CPC, Liberals and Bloc sat down and agreed what was the best way to fix medicare, I might believe them. If the any one of them said they had the answer I would instinctively believe that they were full of shit and beholden to somebody. Any 3 out of the 4 parties agreeing would be sufficient. Maybe even 2 sometimes.

It is a fantasy but it would sure be nice if the parliament was actually an idea forge not a bitch palace.

L.S.

"In fact, the NDP are not even a player. They are the fourth party, utterly unable to affect any vote in the House."

Wow, that's a bit harsh. The NDP didn't hold the balance of power in the last parliament, but they seemed to be able to influence government somewhat. I agree that the claims of "victory" were mighty hollow, but I wonder what you would you would need to be a player. Your treasured Greens, can't even get invited to the game as a spectator. They can't claim "victory" either. Voters gave them the big thumbs down on election night. I doubt very much it was because they were against the environment either.

Actually, the NDP did hold the balance of power in the last parliment, by a margin on one seat.They even managed to squeeze in some tax increases, their raison de etre.

I do agree with you Rafe, that there is something strange about claiming victory when you come in fourth.

Chris, remember that counter-revolutionaries are the real enemy.

First, let's get one thing clear - the Canadian electorate to not choose a minority government. How can they, how does my vote affect goings on in Ontario or PEI. The fact of the matter is, Martin, Layton, and the NDP guy did not run enough candidates that would win their ridings, in order to win a majority governments.

The attack ads did work, for they were aimed directly at the immigrant population, most of whom escaped from repressive regimes.

The "Greens" were invisable, because the media made them so. Our great Canadian press censored them and were a non-party, running non-candidates. Still they got 5% of the vote.

The NDP had better get real and soon or they will join the Greens as a non party, running non candidates.

Rafe, I'm so disillusioned by you.

You've just reverted to the old Righteous Right mindset, whose only response to the New Democrats was to beat the drum and cry out "Beware! Beware! The socialist hordes are at the gates!" (Yes, a BC Socred premier actually said that!) You even had the appalling nerve to suggest, this past year, that you had become a socialist. Dream on, un-Comrade.

You launch your "rambling thoughts" today by attacking Jack Layton, which truly makes me sick. I hope it makes everyone sick enough to whup every bigoted rightwing zealot candidate in the next election.

Now ... about your beloved Greenies ... no rambling thoughts about them today? You're leaving them to slink off-stage, unremarked? Why is that?

You're trying to fool the troops again, Rafe, if you expect us to share your "surprise" at the strength of the Liberals. As you well know, there are now two kinds of Liberal: the Lester Pearson Liberal ... and the Gordon Campbell/Paul Martin Liberal ...(Liberal In Name Only). Voters intuitively understood that. What don't you understand about that?

As for "... having inside the tent peeing out" I think you've entirely lost it there.

Finally, there's nothing strange at all about claiming victory -- for Canada -- in this past election. Unless of course, you really wanted SHarper to win a majority -- if not now, then next time. That is what you want, isn't it Rafe, you old and forevermore Socred?

The Liberals' strength did not surprise me. Remember in 2004 we were told the race was "too close to call."

The pundits and pollsters were way wrong; the Liberals ended up with a healthy minority. I suspected, at that time, that we were seeing the end of reliable polling. So when the polls started showing the Cons nearing a slim majority, I wasn't suprised to see them about 30 seats shy of that.

I don't think there is some last-minute surge of fear coursing through the voters' veins; the strength of the NDP vote in the provincial election also came as a surprise to some.

The lesson: Don't believe the pollsters; they just can't get it right anymore. Results are clearly skewing conservative and that won't be corrected until pollsters find a way to reach the growing numbers of people that have abandoned their wireline phones in favor of wireless devices.

BC Mary, a true NDP'er til death. The trouble with the NDP is that they do not represent anyone but special interest groups. Their standard mumbo jumbo is so, so dated. But you see, you have the true believers continuing the NDP glib nonsnese. Want the NDP to win, get real, get with it, be the party of the people, not the party of special interest groups!

Sure they will, that's why they've been around 60 years and why they're trending up this election and have formed many a provincial government. To even compare them to the Greens is wishful thinking.

Ya, all those special interest groups that make up 17.5% of the population unlike the Tories and Libs who of course have no special interests voting for them.

This is coming from a Green?

I guess the NDP better resign as the gov't of Sask and Manitoba, better step down as the official opposition in BC and better give up its provincial Ontario and 29 federal seats.

Seems to be a player and the "future" you have to get 5% of the vote, have no one elected anywhere and not have any provincial gov't entanglements.

Clearly our current societal organizational models are NOT working. Unless ofcourse you're in the top two percent of the wealth owning minority AND you don't care that the cost for your transient position is the ultimate destruction of the very planet you live on. (i.e.- a rich guy will sell the rope to hang him with if he thinks he can make a buck on it)
Atleast the NDP advocates policies that pull us away from the brink. Not nearly far enough ofcourse but thats where the Greens and their off-spring come in.
Otherwise we might as well not bother sending any more probes to Pluto, Mars or Venus. Those places will be right here!

WM, I thought that it was the independant Chuck Cadman that was the deciding vote in the last gov't... Am I wrong?:)

Grumpy, doesn't it make you cranky to see somebody or something bashed without cause? That's what is disillusioning about Rafe Mair today.

Jack Layton, 20 years a University professor, 12 years a Toronto City councillor, is "a National Windbag" says our Provincial Windbag, Rafe Mair. It's demeaning. Yep, it makes me cranky, sure enough.

It's sad that you try for the jugular, still thinking that by saying that I am "a true NDP unto death" or something, that it's an insult or something. How so, Grump? How would it be an insult, if I were an NDP member?

If you look again at what I said, it isn't advocating for the New Democrats -- it's protesting Rafe Mair's nasty stab at a legitimate and worthy political leader. Jeez, remember those Socred governments? Not a university degree amongst the whole pack. Some of them crowed proudly over their lack of higher education. I remember the relief, when university-trained people took over government in British Columbia. [Oh boy, that should bring the trolls out howling ...]

If you want disclosure, I'll go first: I'm a socialist and always have been. I'm not a member of the NDP but I agree with a lot they do. The last political party I belonged to was the Progressive Conservative Party where I saw, right up close, the terrible toxicity of the rightwingers. I saw that they really do not believe in democracy. That's where you might worry, Grump.

Your turn now: what's your political party affiliation? Don't be shy. Go ahead, hurl your own credentials around, now. It'd be interesting if you could also make it sound shameful. It's only fair, really.

Actually, one pollster was dead on, SES-CPAC. It was within .1 percent for all but the Greens, and in the latter it was out by only 1.5 percent. All, including the regional stats, were well within the margin of error.

Of course, media organizations who hired their own pollsters weren't interested in the SES-CPAC poll. Perhaps it was because it used the least subjective, least leading questions.

I was invited to participate in two polls during the election, neither of them SES-CPAC; 'twas very interesting how the questions were framed.

No. And, it isn't anti-American, it's anti GB's neo-conservative administration.

Those ads hurt the liberals because they were so poorly done. It wasn't until they ran the ad with PM sitting and talking about Canada that the libs started regaining votes.

The truth is that, like it or not, most Canadians do not hold the values and the views of the New-Conservatives.

Grumpy is a little too grumpy - to the point where critical analysis escapes his comprehension. Claiming that the NDP is the "the party of special interest groups!"; the definition of special interest is:

Your ad nauseum rants regarding skytrain, RAV, and skytrain technology in general, kind of fits into that "special interest". While I don't necessarily disagree with you about RAV, perhaps you could tone down the rhetoic a little. It seems that your attacks on Layton are qualified due to the fact that he is a leader of a federal political party. It doesn't seem like much of a basis for criticism to me.

The CBI is usually described as a “lobby group”. But this reveals a misunderstanding of its relationship with the government. Today the government lobbies the CBI. Every public event the bosses’ trade union hosts is attended by a senior minister, usually either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They come on bended knee to ask permission to stay in office.

I thought this was a good quote from George Monbiot whose articles appear in the Guardian.

I'm willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt and see if he governs the same way he campaigned, from the centre. But regardless, we have a media in this country that has been pushing conservatism for decades. Harper owes his position to that media just as much to the Gomery Commision. If Harper isn't right-wing enough I expect the Calgary Sun, in fact the whole Sun chain and Southam too, to go ballistic and pretty soon we'll hear about a new and "real" conservative leader making the rounds of church basements in Lethbridge.

Oh dear me such touchy people these NDP be, yet for all the hype and hoopla only a small portion of the voters, voted for them. These 'higher purpose persons' are lost in a time warp. Jack Layton, joins Joe clark as national windbags! Really this points to the NDP's problems, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN PUBLIC. The memebers of the NDP just don't get it.

Oh yes and when did I mention RAV, etc. in this blog? It seems I do score some direct hits and those on the other end can't handle it. Here lies one of the main problems of the NDP, they just cannot admit to themselves that they need change.

Remeber th NDP is a renaimed CCF party and look how long it took the public to vote for them. It will be the same for the Greens.

And for Harper, you guys would have a lot more credibility if you toned down your anti Harper rants just a bit. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

We already had people elected federally and had formed the gov't of Saskatchewan and the official oppositon of BC at the same point in time the Greens are at now.

The election shows we have the support of 17.5%. Only two parties can claim more and not by much unless you think 17% is terrible and 30% is outstanding.

Face it, the Greens are dead. If they were going to go anywhere they would have at least won a seat somewhere in Canada in the last two elections.

You couldn't even rise above the Natural Law party and their flying yogis. The Greens might as well disband, return to the Libs and Cons and try to change those parties from the inside.

And just to add, I hear Axworthy of the Libs is trying to rebuild their big tent and wants all the Greens to come home. You'll never have a better opportunity, seize it.

Grumpy, you are priceless and no, they do not get it.

ubiquitous, get real, OK. The NDP is overwhelmingly an interest group for organised labour and in particular public sector unions.

And you base this on what?

That you've heard it repeated so many times it must be true?

I could just as easily say the Liberal party is nothing more than an arm of Power Corp.

From Wikipedia

* Current Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, was hired in the 1960s to work for Paul Desmarais, Sr. by Maurice Strong. Martin became President of Canada Steamship Lines, a subsidiary of Power Corp., and in 1981 Desmarais sold the company to Martin and a partner. Martin went on to make his personal fortune as an owner of CSL.

* Former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien sat on the board of Power Corp. subsidiary Consolidated Bathurst in the late 1980s before he became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Chrétien's daughter France is married to the son of Paul Desmarais, Sr., André. Also Chretien's chief of staff Eddie Goldenberg worked in the past for Power Corp.

* Former Prime Minister of Canada, the late Pierre Trudeau, served in the mid-1990s on Power Corp.'s international advisory board. Trudeau's assistant Ted Johnson also worked for Power Corp. During the Trudeau administration Michael Pitfield held a variety of positions in government but during his time in the private sector he was at one time a Vice-Chairman of Power Corp. and is currently listed as a Director Emeritus.

* Former Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney also has a relationship with Power Corporation. Mulroney friend Ian MacDonald described Desmarais as “Mulroney’s mentor in the business world.”, and it is believed that Mulroney has done legal work for Power Corp. since the end of his term as Prime Minister. Additionally former Mulroney Minister of Transport Don Mazankowski is currently Power Corp.'s company director.

* Former Premiers of Ontario William Davis and John Robarts of the Progressive Conservatives have both sat on Power Corp.'s national advisory board. John Rae, the brother of former NDP Premier Bob Rae, currently serves as Power Corp.'s Executive Vice President.

* Former Premier of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Jr. worked for Power Corp. from 1973 to 1981 and in the last three years of this term was a Vice-President in the company.

* Former member of the Liberal Party of Canada Maurice Strong became President of Power Corp. by his mid-thirties. He had a role in the creation of the Canadian International Development Agency and in 1976 he was appointed to run Petro-Canada. He later worked for the United Nations.

BC Mary and others miss the point.

I would have said exactly the same about any other party that acted as if it were a real player and wound up with 29 seats.

The balance of power means that you, combined with the opposition, can bring down the government. Thus the NDP does not hold the balance of poiwer, the Bloc does.

Jack Layton may be many fine things - I like him personally - but he's still a windbag unable to lead his party to a breakthrough as so often promised.

May I also remind Mary that far from being Right Wing (which I don't think I ever was - check my consumer and environmental record when I was in government) I voted Green in the past three elections

Rafe

I'll wager that the people who support the Green party once supported the NDP.

Let's face it, if it wasn't for the money from the large public sector unions, the NDP would be dead in the water. Look. I would really like to vote for the NDP, as they are closer to my political philosophy, than the Liberals and/or Conservative partys, but after the disasterous NDP reign in BC, I could never vote NDP again. Harcourt and Clark were imperially arrogant and reminded me of the song "The working class can kiss my ass, i got the forman's job at last!" They screwed this province royally because they refused to listen to the members of their party and ruled like kings! The idiot they elected leader just before their rout to Gordo, was so inept that he rather politic in India rather than BC! That he now is a member of the Libs., only indicates that he must have been a Liberal plant. Sad to say, Carole James is a wet noodle and what the provincial NDP are letting slide under the table shows me that they must be in league with Gordo & Company! They just cannot be that inept!

God get someone who understands how the British parlimentary system works and the opposition must oppose. If Carole doesn't soon, bye bye NDP!

So Frank, your party isn't doing much and seems to get elected more by accident rather being elected by the good will of the public!

But "we" don't claim to be the balance of power. "We" only claim not to be irrelevant. But some spend all their time on here attemting to argue that, for no purpose I can divine.

Now if you are saying that Layton said it in the course of a political speech to rally the troops so all NDP'ers must believe it then I would point to the Green leader who claims to be so important that he should be included in the debates. Shall I then in response spend all my time on the Tyee tilting at Green windmills?

You can't be both right-wing and environmentally concsious?

The Liberals, as represented by Axworthy, disagree. They are under the impression you are wanderers from their party.

Even though our donation list shows we don't rely on public sector unions for most of our money. Whereas the Libs rely on the corporate sector.

We're the gov't in 2 provinces and the official opposition in two others. The Libs themselves can't beat that even assuming Campbell is a Liberal and not a Conservative at heart.

In my opinion, the only party that can claim a real measure of independence of special interests is, indeed, the Green Party, because it is the only party whose platform is not based on a exclusively anthropocentric approach to ethics. The platforms of all the other parties, are based, almost 100%, on an world view in which only human beings have moral weight. The fact is, long-term human prosperity requires biodiversity, and biodiversity requires some much greater respect for the non-human species with which we share the planet. Saying that out loud unfortunately, does not tend to produce short-term rewards in either our much-vaunted free economic markets (where only humans have cash) or our even much more-vaunted political democracy (in which only adult humans can vote).

Anthropocentrism and myopia are the reasons the Greens poll poorly, but also why, to me at least, it is obvious that they are the least contaminated by the special (human) interests that exist within the electorate. When our myopia as voters dimishes, the Greens will do better than they do now. Sadly of course, our myopia may quite possibly not diminish sufficiently before we go extinct as a result of our ecological ignorance and indifference. We will no doubt drive a great many more species to extinction (although probably not all - I am sure that other pest species will thrive too) before we reach the point of no return, though. Hopefully we will smarten up in time.

My training and experience is in economics, and accounting (with just a little political science, acquired way back in the seventies), not biology or ecology. I sometimes feel surprised that I managed to figure this out.

I noticed this morning a slogan used by the BC Lung Association that should probably be used by the Greens:

"When you can't breathe, nothing else is very important"

Michael Barkusky

I would agree with you M Barkusky, except their solution for industry pollution was industry 'self-regulation'.

Rafe, we know you voted Green. You haven't been paying attention. Earth to Rafe: Our Greens are Right Wing!

The Bloc Quebecois will never form government, so is Gilles Duceppe "a blowhard?"

I think that the accurate definition of a blowhard is someone who pumps himself up by trying to knock someone else down. I'm disillusioned that you stoop to this name-calling.

As for those 29 seats ... Kim Campbell would have thought 29 seats looked pretty darn good after the Conservatives washed up on wreck beach with 2 seats.

Why a breakthrough? I feel better when there's a hefty group of New Democrats in the House of Commons. Last year, New Democrats did use a balance of power to push a Liberal government to fund affordable housing and education. You don't know with certainty how the votes will play out in the coming year. So I'm very pleased that 29 social democrats are in the mix.

Historically, the New Democrats have been called The Conscience of the House. I like that.

Hey Grump ... this is the federal election we're talking about.

I agree - Jack Layton has integrity and compassion. So does Carole James! I would love to have each of them over, and I would trust them with my kin over Harper and Campbell. However, they are lousy leaders.

The problem is that they lead with their hearts and not their minds.

The NDP makes an excellent opposition in that they put the welfare state on the agenda. However, we all know what happens when the welfare state is at the top of the agenda.

Tick..tick..tick...BOOM!!! Economic devestation!!

I know the socialists will disagree, but the economy will always perform better under the BC Liberals/Conservatives, over the NDP, end of story. The rich will get rewarded for their risks, and the gap between the have's and have not's will widen.

It all comes down to people's vision for Canada. I would like to see a country that operates like the American Democrats - who are resemble Harper's Tories - a society where hard-work and risk is rewarded, and there are opportunities for everyone!!

Speaking of possible cabinet members, one wonders if the websites of some of the potential candidates will get a critical look from Mr Harper when the big portfolios are being filled. This website, in particular, might deserve a second look wouldn't you think, Rafe?

http://www.montesolberg.com/blog.htm

As if Harper and his gang are like the democrats! They are not even moderate republicans. They are reactionaries in the cut of GWB and his friends.

lol

Just where is the risk in nonbid gov't contracts that are 'protected' from scrutiny by the very gov't who is supposed to be the overseers of the public trust? And, where is the risk in not paying your fair share of income tax? No, it isn't about risk. It's about graft and monopoly capitalism.

lol

An interesting thing to keep in mind when we are talking about relevance is what number of voters actually voted for who. Once again, if the system actually represented the percentage of votes by seats, what a different parliament we would have- the NDP WOULD have the balance of power. For myself- what is needed is some manner of electoral reform that represents how we vote-not how we don`t vote- with the Bloc receiving 50+ seats for 10% of the vote, and so on. It`s only the system that makes our percentages irrelevant.

Redrivergirl,

The taxes are lower under the democrats than they would be with the conservatives. The majority of dems are opposed to SSM, while supporting abortion.

Neither party supports private health care, both promote the military - one more than the other. Don't forget that Clinton also bombed Iraq and was in and out of Africa.

So - while the Democrats market themselves as the "Liberal" party, they act more like the Conservatives in Canada.

As for your crap about government contracts - you have clearly been brainwashed by your union.

Look at the turnaround of BC Ferries. I know you'll spew some jibberish fed to you by Mr. Sinclair - but I have noticed they are nicer, the food is better, the delays are far fewer.

I'm with mabellbc. The biggest monopolies in this province aren't on the capitalist side, they're on the labour side.

Frank: the NDP at 17.5% is precisely the same percentage of the vote your party got 41 years ago in 1965. Your party represents a small slice of the Canadian electorate and won't go anywhere else till you thoroughly reform yourselves (no pun intended) and make your policies more appealing and directed to mainstream Canadians.

Jack Layton is simply the latest "higher purpose person" running your political party. I'm sure that 40 years from now, when the CBC holds another "greatest Canadian" contest, Jack will be up there, canonized by the Left in ways that only the Left seem to be able to.

The rallying cry of the German Greens in the early 80's was "Not Right, Not Left, But Ahead!" So I am not sure where the impression that Greens are somehow inherently "left wing" and that Canadian Greens are more "right wing". It is purely fantasy and speculation by wanna be pundits who can't be bothered to research the facts before spouting off the party line.

Evidence:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics]Wikipedia - Green Politics[url] : Clearly shows that policies of tax shifting and the other 'right wing' policies are global to the Green Movement, not local aberrations.

Even better, the [url=http://www.global.greens.org.au/charter.htm]Global Greens Charter[url] which was agreed to by all 72 National Green Parties, including the Euros and Canada, and it too very clearly supports tax-shifting and prefers voluntary compliance over imposed 'solutions'.

Deja: please check Jim Harris, leader of the Canadian Greens; also my statement that "our Greens are right wing." So perhaps you are the one "who can't be bothered to research the facts before spouting off the party line."

This discussion is about the Canadian federal election, therefore the Canadian components of the parties.

It is a discussion, OK? Not a fight.

Lets see... what will the Con cabinet be like? Who will be the next Lib leader interim or otherwise? How long will this government last? Why did the Greens do so poorly? Could the NDP have done better?

The next Con cabinet will be much smaller. The libs had 38 cabinet portfolio's. The Cons will likely have 30 or less... and, its likely a mistake, or... Harper just doesn't have the talent in the well to draw from. Either way, a small cabinet is an ideological mistake and it won't matter much. As soon as the Libs are strong internally, there'll be another election.

The next lib leader. This is probably more important to Canadians than anything else in Fed politics right now. If the party chooses unwisely, Harper gets another bye. Look at what John Turner did for the Cons last time...
I'd like to see either Goodale or Dryden. Some say Dryden hasn't got the personality, but its not so much personality, as it is electability. Dryden is liked Canada wide and as such, is a real contender despite what inside circles might say. Thing is, i'm not sure if either of them are up for it. Ralph could be their interim leader for now. Who else for the long haul? Its too soon to predict.

I give the Cons a year on the outside. I can't see a party working with them on much of anything. Their strong suit is accountability, so they and the media claims... Gomery has and will speak in great detail soon. If the Cons don't follow Gomery's recommendations, I can't see gov. reform or any money bills being passed.

The governor general could allow or disallow the Libs and Quebec to form a government if there is a non confidence vote. Interesting... but, it will be a Harper appointed governor general. I won't hold my breath on other parties being asked, but you never know. Were the Cons and Bloc asked when the Libs faced non confidence? I don't know. I would like to know, if someone knows.

The Greens did poorly for several reasons. If it wasn't bad press, it was no press. The Greens could have ran the best candidates in ridings that had no competition. They didn't. In BC alone, there were 3 such ridings. They had a year and a half in between elections, not enough time for internal party growing pains.

I think what really hurt the Greens was voters fearful of a Harper majority. In this election, You either liked Harper cause your ass got kissed, or you voted out of fear to see the ass kisser from getting a majority. Fear drove away some green votes in this election. I don't think it will happen again next time, and predict 5.5% of the vote and who knows? Maybe a seat. The Greens did surprisingly well in Alberta, a province where voters had no fear. The calls for the Greens to go away, though. No... just run better candidates. In fact, all the parties need to run better candidates then they did.

Cont.
The NDP could definitely have done better. Jack went after a strategic vote. He went after soft Lib voters and only soft Lib voters. Left right center, if you look at it that way, he went after left and center, ignoring the right totally, feeling that there was no votes there for him. That was a mistake.

In all honesty, Jack's opportunity couldn't have been any better to pick up seats. He had the National Citizen's Coalition Conservative Bush program on his side. He had the Gomery affair and Lib cobwebs on his side. He went too far with the attacks on the Libs and fell well short on the Cons.

Jack could have also been more honest. Trumping up allegations as scandals, calling himself the third alternative when there were 5... too much rhetoric, too much seriousness even sometimes... the thing he did with guns, citing a gun tragedy in his riding as his reason, making it personal, his weakness on the CBC interview, as well as parts of the debates... he should have gone after Harper in the debate. Above all, he should have more clearly defined the NDP platform, and at almost every turn, he came short on it, offering only rhetoric instead. "Next time, Jack, include the web site and some platform planks with the rhetoric."

Bottom line with Jack is this. Where Cons came in first and NDP came in second, Jack didn't offer his candidates much help, and left the country feeling that he could work with the Cons. And, as Rafe has pointed out, Jack has no power.

Hey BC Mary, Federal NDP - Provincial NDP are one and the same political party! I guess anyone who doesn't goosestep with Stalin is right wing to you. Really, the problem in Canada is the stratified politics, it's worse than England.

Right wing/left wing, all spectrums of Canada's politcal scheme of things are beholden to their supporters, the ones who fund them. Don't support us and our money goes elsewhere.

Canada needs a dramatic change of our politcal system and a tight noose on politcal donations. We need our politicains in public forums and riding the coattails of attack ads. We need the public to ok who is running for each party, as well voting for the candidates, Too often a small cadre of party hacks, by hook and crook, get the party's favoutite to run.

The whole political system needs change......and soon!

BC Mary.

What exactly is it about Green Policies that makes them right wing in your mind? Deja was just refering to the particular policies that are generally pointed at as being so and quite rightly pointing out that if ours are right wing then most Greens around the world are as well. Nothing ever seems to be brought up about social policies though which mostly fall on the left of the spectrum...

Also to clarify. The Greens don't just believe in voluntary compliance. The platform is quite clear on the matter.

Grumpy:
You've got that right about having a tight noose on donations. To bad Harpers NCC got rid of donation transparency in 2004. The NCC did lose in court last year with appeals to remove the "gag" law. It blows my mind that this conflict of interest wasn't covered by the media more thoroughly.

And, the negative Lib ads... they were terrible. All the Libs had to do was connect the dots with Harper, the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) and what they've actively done and campaigned for in this millenium alone. Heck, they can do it in the next election and do major damage. Its like... these parties are doing campaign strategy with makeshift ads at the last minute, when anyone can shoot a 30 sec clip over NCC policy tomarrow, splash a devilish Harper grin with his NCC president title below his pic and spout off what the NCC has accomplished over the last 2 years in the courts alone. Some of the Lib strategy was lame to miss such opportunities.

Is nobody going to deal with the kind of remarks somebody like Monte Solberg has posted on his website since the election. He not only slags Canadians who live in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto and their needs, problems and concerns but he tears a strip off First Nations voters in Saskatchewan. This is who may very well be minister of finance??? Nobody in the media has paid any attention to this point.

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca/pdf/ncc.pdf#search='www.national%20citizens%20coalition'

Anyone who wishes to know what Harpers true agenda is, should cut and paste this site on the net and read away. Most searches of the National Citizens Coalition will "enlighten" the darkness hidden in the mind of Stephen Harper. The best word to describe him is "dangerous". If you are for the elimination of the CBC, RCMP, public health care, support union busting, hidden political party donations, third party election endorsing or negative ad campaigning, just for starters, well, lets just say that this country would be a very different place under a Harper majority.

.

There goes the Non-working Man getting things all screwed up once again.

Sorry fella, the NDP didn't increases taxes but sure as hell forced the Liberals to stop from giving some $5 Billion in tax breaks to the corporate welfare sector.

Look at it as Tough Love for the lobbiests and industry that just won't work to be competitive.

No doubt Harpo will release those flood gates once again while former workers trot down to the local food bank.

Funny, your party is doing worse than it did 22 years ago and between 45 and 50 years ago. Now how did that happen eh?

Please tell me again what percentage of the vote your party got this election? Did the majority of Canadians support you? No.

My party is doing as well as can be expected under first-past-the-post and better than any other party, excepting the Libs and Cons, in Canadian history thank you.

Oh I know the right would never get all misty eyed over one of its own like the drama when Ronnie Reagan died. Scott paper must have been selling kleenex by the truckload that day.

Rafe says:

Too funny. And completely unfair since you never mentioned that in your article. Just a cheapshot.

But why is everyone going on about the Liberals' negative ads? Yes, they had negative ads. But so did the Conservatives and NDP. And the Conservative negative ads came on before the big brouhaha over the Liberals' ads, but no one said a word. Almost as if the media just wanted the Libs out.

Blueridgebelle,

Google Green party/libertarian, Green party/ right wing/ Green party/conservative. It's amazing how much has been written about it.

Including the 'right-wing hippies' of the Green party in Germany.

If voluntary compliance is no longer part of their platform, it is because it was changed. Not that it matters because their platform is never tested. And, of course, we know Campbell's platform would have done any Socialist proud.

G West, this blog is typical of the new breed of opportunistic politician. Here we saw Mr Plant etal basically saying versions of the same thing albeit about our institutions. They're very ignorant, not that bright, in spite of any degree/s they hold and there is a reason why they converge in the 'new-right'.

Hopefully the press will pick up on it, but don't count on it right now.

Basically, our best hope is that the US will get themselves and by virtue of that, the rest of the Western World out of this mess by dealing with the neo-cons. This is the star the New-Conservatives have hitched their wagon to and it is a dieing one.

They will and are doing so as we speak.

BC Mary:

I think that you missed the point, saying "our Greens" are right wing implies that they hold different policies than other Green Parties. They do not, and it is easy to demonstrate.

I am not a huge Harris fan, but to tag him as some kind of Harper clone or a political opportunist is just plain misleading. He's a former Press Secratary for the UK Greens and has been a card carrying Green for 17 years. I believe in his sincerity, but he is kind of out of place in some ways. Why every sentence about him has to start with "former-Tory" is odd since its really not much more than a bit of image manipulation on his part.

The problem with Harris is not his day-job or what party he supported when he was a teenager, its his heavy handed 'leadership' and lack of fiscal accountablity. He barely held the leadership last time, I wouldbe surprised if he is able to win the leadership again. He has served his purpose it seems.

Yes, I guess wasn't clear about that. The Greens would prefer voluntary compliance through increased taxation. The best description of the model is the approach that was used for smoking. Pubic awareness, increased taxation to recoup public costs in combination with stronger regulations, in this case through workplace and public smoking bans.

And no, I don't think this is a fight, you should see me when I'm ready to fight :D

Frankly, I can't believe any committed activist is reading Rafe Mair in this day and age. Everything he says to be proof of the fact that he was in the right place in the right time and does not read enough. Twenty years behind what's going on, methinks.

The Liberals are about to go through a leadership convention, and will pick either an angloiphone or francophone. Maybe they should "break the mold" this time around, and actually represent ALL canadians (of which they proudly boast) by choosing an aboriginal (remember them?) to lead the federal Liberal party into the next election.

I would consider voting Liberal if they looked outside their myopic french/english box.

Say what??? So right now you're not voting for anyone? Because all the parties have either an English or a French leader. That's got to be the stupidest quote of the year. Yes, there are aboriginals and other races that could lead, but why hold only the Liberals up to this standard?

I have to take issue with those who say the CPC lost it on the basis of Liberal attack ads... The polls started dropping (and the CBC was inundated with comments concerning it) from the moment Harper let slip that he considered the supreme court biased. Canada may have problems, but a supreme court along the lines of the U.S. (politically stacked) isn't one of them.

His apology wasn't enough. In short, he couldn't keep his mouth shut for one more week, and enough voters saw the old Stephen Harper to cost him a majority.

The poster with the misnomer of the brain is correct: it now comes down to who the Liberals choose as a new leader, and as soon as he gets settled in and the polls show that both the bloc and the Libs will gain with a new election, Harper will be in another election campaign, followed by opposition and the Ides of March. I am inclined to agree that Ken Dryden could probably do it... he certainly has name recognition... and of course he played for Montreal. Haven't checked yet if Mckenna is going to run or not...

As for all the comments on who actually voted green, I know quite a few who were normally NDP who voted green in previous elections because they felt that the NDP had taken them for granted, especially but not only provincially, or just to make a statement. Since some 70 per cent of the populace has environmental concerns, their support could come from anywhere...

R. Smiley

Mabelbc wrote :

They also provide great entertainment on the nightly news with more crashes on the beach and engine room fires. As for food, while I can enjoy a Whitespot burger a couple times a year, there and back does not constitute "better food."

Sounds like the mantra has got you bamboozeled, jeesh.

the so-called liberal's 'strength' was simply the big city yuppies believing all the bullshit fearmongering that they were bombarded with during the campaign. martin and his guys obviously have a dearth of ideas or solutions so they just talk about the other guy. some are stupid enough to believe it.

Including the 'right-wing hippies' of the Green party in Germany.

I googled these words and didn't come up with an amazing amount of material and barely anything that refers directly to the situation in Canada. The German articles which I'm gathering you must be refering is about a youth faction in 1999 or the wiki article which spoke about the right wing faction breaking away...not sure. Libertarian returned a bunch of links about the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (which is totally different) and libertarian views in general with some comparing policies surround decentrailzation in politics with libertarian views. This is hardly a right wing thing.

I may be missing something but there is not an overwhelming amount of info there that proves one way or another that the Greens are utterly 'right' wing.

Well this seems a little unfair. It mattered enough when you were using it to dis them. So now that it's incorrect its meaningless? Why use it in the first place then? And in terms of testing I'd argue that the majority of the parties enviro platforms have not been tested either. If they were then maybe we wouldn't be on so much trouble right now. By this account I guess the NDP's tax shifting and energy policies don't matter either. Kinda a silly arguement I would think.

And not sure what you are trying to get at with the last statement.

Anyways this is really off topic. I apologize and will move back onto it.

Two days before the Writ was dropped we had the Conservatives and the Liberals at around 32%.

In mid-December we had the Liberals at 32% + and the Conservatives at 31% +

MSM pollsters had the Conservatives around 27-29% over this period.

On January 9, 2005 we polled the Conservatives at 34% small + and Liberals at 30%. After factoring undecided through two questions our average was 35% for Conservatives and 30.5% for Liberals. Our Quebec numbers on this date for the Conservatives were around 14%. Our Ontario numbers were 37% for Conservatives.

Around this time MSM had Conservatives around 20% and than shooting up to as high as 32%. With every 1% in Quebec worth approximately .25% nationally you could see that in the week following the second English debate that Quebec through MSM polls had affected national support for the Conservatives upwards of 6% nationally from their standing prior to the election or 4.5% from our January 9, 2005 numbers (which would mean about 39.5% nationally).

The MSM pollsters did a very courageous thing by running the Conservatives up in Quebec. Coefficients and all that jazz suggest that had the Conservatives only gone up to say 18-20% that the result would have been a decline for the Liberals in Quebec, and only modest gains in seats for the Conservatives (1-3 seats). Once the Conservatives attain numbers toward 30%, the Liberal support in Quebec is supported and Liberal seats in Quebec were thus held.

The alternative was that the election result would have shown the Bloc with 54% of the popular vote, and not in the low 40's. By running the Quebec numbers the MSM pollster gave both the Conservatives and the Liberals a decent foothold in Quebec. These polls in my belief changed the entire composition of seats in Quebec. It was utterly brilliant.

Harper knew he had to follow the polls, because both he and Mr. Martin knew the Liberals weren't to win this election. The downside was that the Conservatives could never have held that lead, they simply did not have the stuff to take a majority (not yet anyhow). Moreover those 'heady' polling numbers made Mr. Harper particularly vulnerable to a slide. Just as a stock requires specific earnings and such to justify its price, so must a political party merit a majority. The argument could not be made that the Conservatives did.

Now the Liberals are permitted to rinse clean, and Mr. Harper gets a chance to show his stuff.
The real issue is whether or not the Bloc can remain relevant in Quebec. The Bloc would have owned Quebec save for the last two weeks of the election, and Ontario may have tipped more Conservative side as a buttress against this Bloc domination. Disastrous for the Liberals.

In the end a reasonable conclusion particularly if you prefer unity in Canada.

oh yes, I look forward to the day when Monty Solberg feeds those cute little wolverines by hand.. what a nitwit! Having only a coupla fingers left to count on might disqualify him from becoming minister of finance. What ambitions: early retirement to become the Thoreau of Medicine Hat, "but without the brilliant insights" LOL!

My gawd it's a pleasure to read Dippers and Greens sniping at one another - with both dumping on the Liberals.

It bolsters the image of the CPC, led by PM2b Harper, as a party to be admired for coalescing the disparate elements of the conservative spectrum of Canadians.
Although less vocal perhaps in their opionating per capita, Conservatives still retain significantly greater numbers agreed on a common set of values than Dippers and Greens combined, and have done so even during the dark days of Reform v PC.

Whether the CPC has reached it's limits of electoral support will be tested by PM2b Harper's handling of Parliament.
The Greens may continue to grow - if only as the mark of protest against politics as usual.
It's entirely likely that the NDP has already reached it's high-water mark of electoral support, and is relegated to ring-card girl status - dazzling to look at, but not what packed the arena.

Because, GRW, the Liberal Party is the only one who PROUDLY declares itself to be the all-inclusive party. If the other parties also want to "see the light" all the better. But the Liberals have openly boasted of this, so it is their feet they've planted firmly in the fire.

all-inclusive party? or all-opportunist party?

I believe that Mr. McKenna is bowing out, and Mr. Tobin reluctant to confront Liberal leadership problems owing to the Gomery 'wind' (which will blow PM Harper's Accountability legislation), and to Liberal Party debt problems.

From what I am hearing this accountability legislation will fundamentally change the inner workings of government as we know it, particularly its relationship with the people they serve. This is a good and necessary thing to do. If the bureaucracy co-opts this from the political it will emerge worthless.

If Mr. Harper is as intense about solving this as I have heard he intends to be than this is a very good thing, which will eventually be felt by the people, and responded to positively.

I am not sure if many Canadians can imagine how different the 'terrain' of the country may be.

If all Mr. Harper did was make sure things ran smoothly and the poor and the downtrodden did not get kicked worse but were treated with more compassion (never mind a hand up and that stuff don't kick people who are down), and people who get rich in this country do so from innovation and hard work, and not friends they know (that's you elected people particularly those 'white folks' hanging around aboriginal land claims)AND pursues accountabily vigorously to solve the 'culture of entitlement' problems in this country, than he will have properly followed his mandate.

The religious right did not bring home the bacon for the Conservatives so the social agenda MUST be set aside, until the hard work is done, or remain set aside permanently. For Mr. Harper to move on the Free Vote for same sex marriage as Mr. Mair suggests, given the climate in Canadian politics right now, this would be pretty foolish.

Sometimes one has to do the hard work only and stay away from the political bells and whistles. This is a time in our history when we have to consider the hard work. It isn't pretty or exciting but is it the difference between Paradise Lost and Found

PeteL -

Whether you like it or not, BC Ferries is seen by the business world as a huge success!!

They are profitable, and no longer costing the tax-payer, the ships are more comfortable, they are nearly always on time, and the food is far superior.

There is no doubt the ferry crashing into horshoe bay is a bit of a black eye, but there have always been problems with those ships.

Let's hope the Germans build a better ship!!

You socialists have to take your blinders off! As a conservative, I am very happy to point out the benefits of socialism. However, I believe the benefits of capitalism to be far superior.

Everything with you guys is corporate greed, Gordo and his buddies. I understand that many of you have been hurt by his cut-backs, however for you to turn an absolute blind eye to the BC Liberal performance is lunacy!!

The economy is better than ever, business sentiment is higher than ever, unemployment is lower than ever, the budget is balanced, taxes have been drastically reduced, the Olympics are coming, there are several infrastructural upgrades in process, there is increased university capacity, literacy rates are higher, graduation rates are higher.....blah blah blah!

Not everything is bad in BC!!! I know we can't attribute everything good to Gordo, but we can attribute some. Just like it is foolish to blame the worlds' problems on Gordo!

He has secured my vote for as long as he is a politician!!

To Redrivergirl;
And to anyone else wondering what is happening in the U.S. I would recommend to you Jimmy Carters' Book "Our Endangered Values". It is quite an eye opener and truly goes to the heart of the problems currently in the U.S.Administration. I note that a lot of it is material that we sense and see happening from outside the U.S., however, what is important is that a major figure, former president and theologian has published a thoughtful insight and damning condemnation of the current ideologues inhabiting this Administration.

Is is particularly relevant to Canada, absolutely, as we are just starting the see the cross border movement of these disturbing trends which if left unchallenged could easily create a further fracturing of many, if not most of our international accords.

Grumpy:

If you truly remember the world wide economic situation when the NDP formed government, and especially the Pacific Rim, there was a meltdown. Because of this, our exports were drastically reduced, hence the tax base that would normally have come into this Province. Left with lower than anticipated revenues, the NDP were left with no choice but to cut services. Their first budget, prior to the meltdown, was totally middle of the road, intended to show the populace that they were striving to move towards the center, but circumstances outside their control forced them into doing things that they normally would have not done.

Which is totally unlike the Provincial Liberals, which are regurgitated SOCRED's who lost their party and highjacked Gordon Wilson's party, which was truly small "l" liberal. The BC Fiberals are on record as not being associated with any other Liberal party chain, period.

Martin;

What do you expect when the right wing media, led by CanWest Global continually uses their newspapers and Global TV to subtly cut up the NDP? This party has been battling, uphill, for decades, the playing field is hardly fair, unless you're one of the well-to-do at the top of the pile.

BC Mary;

Historically, the New Democrats have been called The Conscience of the House. I like that.

I love you to the moon, you're my kind of gal, and we totally think alike. And I, for one, would not want to be on the end of your wrath, if you were in a FIGHT. :)

Don F.

mabellbc,

I think we simply disagree on whether the Liberal performance is bad, mediocre, good or outstanding. My ideology makes me look at issues where the Campbell gov't has not performed well on. I assume yours points you to those where they have. I'm not calling you an idiot, just that my priorities are probably different. The right often likes to say "We all want the same things". I disagree. We don't.

You know a lot of the stuff above Campbell can't take credit for? But since you claim we have blinders on I'll go on.

Literacy and grad rates? After 4 years? Oh c'mon, if anything those are NDP successes.

As for business sentiment, that went up the day Campbell was first elected. They funded his entire campaign, why wouldn't they be happy?

Many Greens like to say that Clark's pro-labour policies pushed them away from the NDP because to them the environment, not jobs in the forest sector, was their priority. I had the same problem with Clark's Olympic bid. I may have liked the guy and voted for him but the Olympic bid was a throwback to Bennett and the days of give the people a circus so you don't have to give them bread politics.

Many righties would have been taking pot-shots at the Olympics if the NDP were still in power, calling it a big sinkhole. Well, I don't care if it was an NDP idea, it stinks.

As for the economy, it was already shooting up under the NDP in its last days as the recovery after the Asian Flu kicked in. It contiunued on its climb under the Libs when low interest rates and high commodity prices were thrown as fuel on the fire.

As for the budget being balanced, we've been over that ad nauseum on these forums. The increased federal transfers are higher than the surplus. That means its federal money that gave us our surplus. We'd be in deficit if Campbell was recieving the same level of federal money as the NDP received after Martin's cuts as finance minister.

Even after driving drunk? That may seem like a unfair shot but if Campobell was leader of the NDP at the time I would have switched my vote to Green. For the same reason why if I had lived in Vanc Centre during the election I would have voted Green.

From that very left-wing bank, the CIBC,

Yes, according to a new study by CIBC World Markets Inc., because while jobs may be plentiful, they generally don't pay very well or offer much of a future.

The quality of Canadian employment has been declining since the beginning of the decade, the study argues, and that leaves the job market highly vulnerable in the event of an economic downturn.

"A low quality job is better than no job whatsoever," said Benjamin Tal, the paper's author. "But if many of these jobs don't pay very well, and they're not very stable, it means that in the next economic slowdown, we may see all of them disappear very quickly."

Full article including the other side of the argument can be found here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060131/REMPLOYMENT31/TPBusiness/TopStories

About this knife-edged Rafe-point:

The balance of power means that you, combined with the opposition, can bring down the government. Thus the NDP does not hold the balance of poiwer, the Bloc does. says Rafe Mair, mathematician extraordinaire.

Hmmm. C.P.C. (the new government) has 124 seats.
Liberals (old government, now Opposition) has 103 seats.
Bloc Quebecois has 51 seats
New Democratic Party has 29 seats.

Last I checked, 103 + 29 = a sum larger than 124. Just as 103 + 59 = a sum larger than 124. So, it's entirely possible for either the Bloc or the NDP to join forces with the Liberal Opposition and bring down the new government.

I vote you off my island, Rafe. You can return (via publicly owned BC Ferries) someday, or after you apologize for wrongful slings and arrows.

mabelbc, you should really not discuss things in such general terms. You say that “we” socialist need to take the blinders off but you speak in such generalities that I question who is actually wearing the blinders.

“They (BC Ferries) are profitable, and no longer costing the tax-payer, the ships are more comfortable, they are nearly always on time, and the food is far superior.”

Yes, the ferry corporation is profitable but your statement that it is no longer costing the taxpayers is simple false. The government subsidizes BC Ferries every year: more than 24 million in 2005 and this goes up each year according to the CPI. Your other statements regard BC Ferries are based on what? Ferries are running on time? They weren’t before? The ferries are more comfortable? Are they not using the same ferries as before? The food is better? Well, I guess that’s a matter of taste but hey, if you enjoy cold white spot burgers, good for you.

Regarding the balanced budget. This has been discussed to death already, suffice it to say that you seem to imply that prior to the Campbell liberals that budget was not balanced: it was. You also fail to mention that only now (since 2000) is the budget balanced. You also fail to mention that without equalization, we’d still be in a deficit position. Analysis and critical thinking mabelbc, can be wondrous things.

Oh, I forgot to add, mabelbc, that the subsidy that BC Ferries receives annually (you know the one from government, paid for by us, the taxpayers) is on top of the revenues that they already receive from fares, concessions, etc. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but without public support, BC Ferries is far from profitable. However, the good news is (at least to the right wingers who blindly believe that capitalism will solve all the ills the world) that in a year or two, the contract between the gov't and BC Ferries corp will be renewed. The catch is that the original contract stated that after the first 5 years, the ferry corp will no longer have to apply to the ferries commission to cut service.

Do you get where I'm going with this mabelbc? No? Ok, I'll spell it out. Without the subsidy, BC Ferries isn't actually all that profitable. If they cut those costly services to those island communities whose very livelihood depends on the ferry service, a profit they will make. As a private corp, they will be able to do whatever they please – they will be under no obligations to provide cost ineffective services to the public despite the fact that they are providing a public good. So what we have mabelbc, is what economist call a market failure; that’s were the free market, or capitalism, fails.

BC Mary: The Bloc and the official opposition can do it on their own, combining for over half the seats in the house. The NDP and official oppostion cannot, combining for less than half the seats.

I can dig that! The NDP perform better in certain areas and it comes down do ideologies. I have no problem with socialists, just those with blinders!

You never hear a Conservative voter trying to tell you that social programs would be better under the Tories!

As for the defecit - our sides will never agree, you are correct.

The NDP panders to special interest groups, the BCLibs/Tories pander to business - end of story. Let's call a spade a spade.

As far a BC Ferries, there are stats re. their delays. Yes BC Ferries is subsidized, as is every form of transportation. However, there are operating within budget. I personally find them more comfortable!!

ubiquitous - the free market never fails - subsidized lifestyles do. I do believe that government has a role, just not as large as you would like.

mabellbc: you'll would be very hard pressed to find a conservative economist who would make such a bold statement. But some how I think that when I mention market failure, we're imagining different things.

If there are stats, I'd love to see them. After a quick seach of the latest annual report, I couldn't find anything pertaining to performance measures. But I agree with you that they must be somewhere.

Yes, but I believe that you were insinuating that because BC Ferries is a "private" corporation, that we (the taxpayers) are no longer paying for it (which you now admit that we are). Without our subsidy, the corporation would find it difficult to operate within budget. It hardly operates like other private firms. BC Ferries, in fact, provides a perfect example of how markets fail.

That's great! But how does restructuring BC Ferries Corporation make the ferries more comfortable?

I don't think that you know how much of role I believe government should play. It's not something that I can easily quantify. Again, you're simplifying while accusing others of wearing blinders. How big of a role gov't should play is something I'd rather analyze on a case by case basis rather than make some blanket statement on the issue. For example, when it come to BC Ferries, I don't necessarily mind the current configuration (despite my fears over the expiration of the original contract). BC Ferries may prove to be more efficient and cost effective in the long-run as a private firm. At the same time, the government needs to play a role (and currently they do via the BC Ferries Commission) because, as part of the transportation network, it is a public good. And this brings us full circle to the notion of market failure, so I'll stop there.

jtothemfk, thanks. Yeah ... Don Newman (CBC Newsworld) is just discussing this and having a little trouble sorting out his chess pieces too.

He made the point that he would never have imagined early in the Liberal mandate that the NDP would have been approached to provide the government with the majority needed for getting their budget passed. Said Newman: "But that's exactly what happened. So who's to say that couldn't happen again with the Conservatives?"

As for those numbers, give or take a few by-elections, a few floor crossings, a few abstensions, anything can happen.

this is true, re: by-elections and floor crossings. and I hope that such incidents would boost the minority. however, it may be just as likely that a few liberals cross to the cons. depends what harper does. if he keeps to relative moderation, he could attract some liberals. of course when the gags and cuffs are off,and reactionary zealots start screaming for what they really believe, i could see some moderate old tories shaking their heads and going to liberals. (as i've said before, even "moderate cons" will take a dose of intolerance and bigotry with their coffee as long as the economic line is toed) Though the latter seems very unlikeely. rare indeed when a government member crosses to the opposition on principle. has that ever happened? anyone?

should read: (butas I've said before...)

Thanks Stan, I admire President Carter a great deal. In these times when so many claim to be Christian, he stands out as a real one, I think.

Blueridgebelle responded: Well this seems a little unfair. It mattered enough when you were using it to dis them. So now that it's incorrect its meaningless? Why use it in the first place then? And in terms of testing I'd argue that the majority of the parties enviro platforms have not been tested either. If they were then maybe we wouldn't be on so much trouble right now.

You conveniently ignored the first sentence, which states that if voluntary compliance is not part of your platform, then it changed. I was making two distinct claims, hence the ...'Not that it matters.'

How can anyone who isn't for strict regulation, fines and jail time high enough to actually deter polluters, claim sole proprietorship as the party of the environment and not expect to be challenged on it?

If I were dismissing my first sentence, which I am not, I would agree that the argument breaks down when compared to other parties who also promise the moon, however, at least they have some history to be judged on. The fact that the Greens do not puts them at an unfair advantage.

I didn't say they are utterly 'right' wing. It is my observation that the party consists largely of Libertarians who are as you know right wing, if one must use left/right adjectives.

Certainly here the self-identified Greens have little but derision for whom they call 'Socialists' and seemingly could care less about people who are disadvantaged.

I'm not 'dissing' the party, I am making an observation and responding in tone to many prior postings by self-described Greens.

I stand by my statement that there is an 'amazing' (obviously subjective) amount of information that the Greens are no longer progressive.

I have no problem with the Green party standing for whatever it chooses to believe in as long as they're honest about it.

The fact that the Greens do not puts them at an unfair advantage... at making platform claims and promises.

I too think parties need to have accountability.

Working Man: "Actually, the NDP did hold the balance of power in the last parliment, by a margin on one seat."

They did? Why was Chuck Cadman's vote so important then? LOL!

Conservative economist and CNN host, Lou Dobbs, just said, 'free-trade has proven it doesn't work in every area. He was discussing with his pundits the fact that even though his country could provide state of the art medical care for some, most Americans can't even afford to go to the dr, or an insurance policy. His neo-con pundit was touting 'saving accounts'.

RRG - Maybe free trade doesn't work in every area but then neither did communism.

Oops, My mistake, NLN. He said, in 'any' area.
It's over for the most part in any event. Sure there's more damage they will do, but the tide changed at least a year ago.

hey NLN, I don't think RRG is a defender of communism. At least I've never heard her claim to be a fan.

Your comment re Communism is interesting NLN. I grew up hearing about the problems the Soviets had in society. And, ironically, the very same is happening in the so called 'free-market'. Line ups, waiting on hold forever, not being able to obtain goods and services. In the Soviets case is was production issues, in the 'free-market' it has become purchasing power and such lax regulations that chemical spills, improperly monitored pharmaceuticals etc, are harming the public. And, of course, monopoly capitalism and oligarchies.

I think it proves our former Socio-democracy/social safety net, common good, peace order and good gov't, is the best overall.

You're right, Frank. I'm not a Communist.

mabellbc

They are profitable, and no longer costing the tax-payer, the ships are more comfortable, they are nearly always on time, and the food is far superior.

Do we, who actually ride the ferries, give a sh*t how the are "seen" by the business world? The last time I went over to the island, I don't remember worrying about what the Chamber of Commerce thought. It's laughable!

As to "no longer costing the taxpayer"; please explain. "Nearly always on time", you say. Hmmm. I love your precision. Hasn't it always been "nearly on time". Further, "nearly on time"; is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Yeah,my bad, been a long day. sometimes it seems that we'rre standing very close to the same line only on opposite sides.

mabellbc:

To say "we can't attribute everything good to Gordo" is vary insightful of you. Once you start working on that thought, you'll gain even further insight.

First, may I recommend you look at what's happening in China and then determine how that scenario affects commodity prices. Then ask yourself what that's got to do with BC.

Having done that, then ask where Gordon Campbell had a hand in it.

Frank:

Ditto to that and all of your post.

mabellbc:

I'd be careful about that whole concept of "subsidized lifestyles". Are you quite sure you don't live a subsidized lifestyles?

I have heard it argued that providing ferry service to the Gulf Islands constitutes subsidizing lifestyles. If so, what about that highway out to Bella Coola? Perhaps we could apply that definition to the highway to Whistler as well(I know I'd like to, as I'm not a skier and have no need for that highway whatsoever).

What do you think mabellbc, are we subsidizing lifestyles up in Whistler?

Grub when Mabelbc refers to subsidized lifestyles she means when people have to find a way to put groceries on the table.

I can tell you as a small business with the rising C$, rising interest rates, an amazing number of new levies, fees imposed by all 3 levels of govt. it is becoming increasingly difficult to do business in BC.

I am trying to compete on an international level and quite frankly the globalization that is going on (read that market concentration) is making almost impossible to be competitive and offer my clients the best possible service at rates they are able to pay.

The way things are going at this moment, if we are unable to secure additional clients, we will be out of business in a few months and you know who suffers...the orphanage in Manila, the hospital in Kampala, the school in Malawi that we ship to on behalf of our clients. The big guys do not want competition...they want to control the supply and the demand and ultimately the price. When that happens charity will be a thing of the past.

I think I am somewhat frustrated at the moment, so please forgive my rant...

StanM:

Your rant makes sense to me. mabellbc rarely does.

mabellbc's post always seem, somehow, genuine. However, she lacks even a rudimentary grasp of economics. Facile comments like "the free market never fails - subsidized lifestyles do" are indicative of a mind devoid of some fundamental comprehension and, quite frankly, a person who refuses to look past ideological mantras in order to see the world around her.

Why can she not see that negative externalities imposed on an innocent public -- like you trying to cope in a globalized market foisted on you without your consent -- are proof positive that free markets fail every damned day!

Re the Olympics and the NDP. The NDP did want them, but they would never have signed off on such a rich give away as this gov't did. Vancouver could have 'won' that bid even if it was far less opulent. They also would have ensured some lasting benefit, not undermined them ala False Creek. We also would know the true costs.

I'm sorry your business is suffering, Stan. I hope you can hang in for longer. Protectionism has risen it's head across the border and is thundering home. Sooner than later this trend will be over and decent business people will once again be able to engage successfully. (I prefer 'engage' over 'compete'. Compete now has a neg connotation due to the 'free-market' definition.)

Apparently saving in the US is at it's lowest from 1933!

redrivergirl:

I'm not so sure, but we'll never know.

Bottom line: the Olympics are a bad idea.

How do you know that? Aren't the Olympic bureaucrats suckers for opulence?

Well, Grub, I too am against the Olympics. And, that other funnel, RAV. They've been shown to be a big taxpayer rip off. However, I think the NDP would have been more careful with taxpayer money and less interested in the big rip off of p3s and thus the multiplier effect would have held.

Mostly though, I don't think the argument that the NDP were for them can be used to tar them with the fiasco now unfolding under Campbell's watch.

I heard a while back Moe Sihota saying the bid was too rich. This was on the radio during the proposal stage.

But, you're right. Who knows now.

Referring to the comment about the "susidized lifestyles", how about the Sea to Sky Highway? The workers of the province are paying for the players to continue to live off their taxes.

Guys: Strange thing to me is that many of our comments seem more concerned with fighting the last provincial election all over again. I think the federal situation is going to be very precarious over the next 16 months or so. Someone, and I don't think it's going to be the media and probably not the federal Liberals, needs to respond to what the CPC are going to do. Unless we wake up to what Harper's government is really about - creating the necessary conditions to win a majority in the next election so that he can actually make the social and structural changes he's committed to - we are in danger of losing the inclusive, generous and humane society we have been proud of for most of our lives.

great news for conservatives. the front runners are dropping like flies and it looks like belinda, who a short time ago was a bona-fide conservative, is now the logical candidate for the liberal leadership. this should be fun. she's a sitting duck. congratulations mr. harper.

G West re:
"Someone, ... ..., needs to respond to what the CPC are going to do. Unless we wake up to what Harper's government is ... ... committed to - we are in danger of losing the inclusive, generous and humane society we have been proud of for most of our lives."

How does Canada ensure an inclusive society by excluding the CPC?

More bullshit from Maikeru.

The real issue is more as G. West poses it, "How do we maintain a generous and humane society without excluding the CPC. In its current form and with its current ruling class emphasis and loyalties, and especially, loyalty to a foreign Empire, the CPC is (a) conflicted and (b) really a 5th Column entity within the Canadian national experience.

It is the CPC that has to change, if it wants to continue to be included in the Canadian national life.

(The value of us tolerating these neoconservative types here, such as even the worst of them, is that in the ensuing debate they expose and make clear to even the casual reader of this site, the real nature of their loyalties and their agenda. The temptation is to shut them out I know, but their presence here sharpens our analysis and our engagement with them, and makes steadily clearer the damage they do to the nation and the people's interest.)

Maikeru emerges ever more and more clearly as, if not Ron Erwin in disguise, one only more thinly veiled and of the same essential mindset and ideological, God Bless Amerika type.

I am amused by one emerging possibility out of this Liberal leadership race, especially if a Belinda Stronach or her like background emerges in control of the Liberal Party: The NDP which has for a long time lived in the hope that it would move in to replace the Liberals, may see essentially, Conservatives in both parties take over both the leading capitalist parties.

Then you have BC at the Federal political level.

Interesting and worth watching, what just may be being played out in the background here; a kind of Neocon counter-revolution that precedes the revolution. LOL :-D

A truly dangerous period of history emerging for the people, how e're blissfully ignorant of the emerging reality they be. Still, real life is the best and greatest teacher of all.

Everything the conservatives will do is designed to leave some segment of the electorate beholden to the goodwill and largess of the Government.
Harper and his supporters want to create an electorate that feels obliged to vote for them in the next election. They've already achieved that in Alberta - just look at the relative votes in the province - with the connivance of Ralph Klein. I'd like to know how it's going to be possible to publicize what they intend and to counter it - given the fact that the federal coffers are full and the provinces have practically been invited to back trucks up to the door.
No matter what happens, this country is not going to be the same kind of place two or three years from now if Canadians don't wake up.
And I'm not at all sure it's going to be the kind of place where minorities, immigrants, refugees, First Nations and non Christians will feel very comfortable any more - to mention just one thing. In fact, there is at least a possibility that, as suggested in a post above, that the Liberals will begin moving wildly to the right in an attempt to counter the reformers and their agenda.
The problem is finding a way to counter what the conservatives are up to. I'm not sure the Liberal party, nor the NDP for that matter, is up to the job and I seriously doubt many in the media have the jam either. In all probability another thing the CPC will get its teeth into pretty quickly is the emasculation (if not outright elimination) of the CBC.
If these were traditional conservatives I wouldn't be saying this; they're not - it is reform blood that rushes through the veins of the CPC, make no mistake about it. Harper is just the Trojan Horse that got them inside the walls.
I'm afraid arguing about who the Liberals choose as their next leader may be largely irrelevant - but I have no answers either.

maikeru
Don't think I said anything about excluding the CPC. I said that people who don't agree with what they're all about need to find a way to 'respond' to them - that's all. It's the 'inclusive' character of Canadian society that I said the CPC agenda threatens. I think that was pretty clear from what I wrote although not from the redacted version you quoted in your post.

G West re:
It's the 'inclusive' character of Canadian society that I said the CPC agenda threatens. I think that was pretty clear from what I wrote although not from the redacted version you quoted in your post.

Well, my understanding of Canadian society is that it includes values espoused by those supportive of the CPC.

Your assessment that a CPC agenda threatens the inclusive nature of Canadian society illustrates that which you must fear most - exclusion of your own agenda.

Fellow Canadians who also felt their agendas had been excluded for some time worked diligently to right such shorcoming, and voted CPC.

Those Canadians assuming the moral highground to accuse fellow Canadians of treason - due their own rancid prejudice - are the real enemy of Canadian society.

Oh, not at all! I think the 'agenda' of the Harper government is far from conservative in the traditional sense. Conservatives are not interested in radical change and that's what the core of Mr Harper's party 'does' believe in. Go to Monte Solberg's website and read about what he says there about the Canadians who live in Canada's largest cities; about native Canadians and the way they vote; about the tears in the eyes of the 'old reformers' at his party headquarters in Medicine Hat the night of the election.
This stuff is definitely not inclusive and I defy anyone to show me how it is. The problem with any party that has an 'agenda' is what's scary to me. Also, please try not to accuse me of, how did you put it, 'rancid prejudice' - all I asked you to do was quote me accurately. Others may play that game of name calling with you, I haven't.
Cheers.

G West re
"I think the 'agenda' of the Harper government is far from conservative in the traditional sense. Conservatives are not interested in radical change and that's what the core of Mr Harper's party 'does' believe in.

You've defined conservatism based on your own 'traditional' understanding of the political spectrum. Radical changes have occurred in Canada consistently since PM Trudeau's first tenure, including during the 'Red Tory' years of PM Mulroney.

It is understandable that Canadians have only a vague understanding of conservatism, when liberals - upon endorsing some agenda - then cast it in stone for all eternity, alarmed at any challenge to newly ordained 'tradition'.

Many, myself included, think it absolutely necessary to re-visit abortion in light of experience. I personally think it the greatest human-rights issue facing Canadians today.

I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that abortion can only be curtailed in Canada if sensible alternate choices exist.
If Canadians are choking on the concept of Universal day-care, I don't see much hope in creating orphanage institutions to take in the millions aborted. Nor does adoption seem to be commonly discussed.
Are there no other alternatives open to a country so blessed with bounty - yet reliant upon immigration to maintain population growth ?

re:
The problem with any party that has an 'agenda' is what's scary to me.
I'll agree there. The election agenda followed by the Liberal Party of Canada in 2004 and 2006 was reprehensible, and it scares me that the party has descended to such thuggery to inspire support - rather than campaigning on unblemished record of their own achievements.

Also, please try not to accuse me of, how did you put it, 'rancid prejudice' - all I asked you to do was quote me accurately.

You've not said anyone is treasonous for adhering to support for the CPC. I merely pointed out to you that the real enemy of Canada are of that ilk.

I believe I did quote you accurately and fairly, and without mean intent to twist the meaning of your words.

You championed need to oppose the means by which 'Harper's government' intends to implement social and structural changes in Canada. He could only do that by gaining sufficient support among the electorate - your fellow Canadian citizens

Others may play that game of name calling with you, I haven't.
I'm aware of that, and apologize if my wording was unclear, as it was not meant to describe your own courteous discourse.

Cheers.

To maikeru: As a small "L" liberal, I am tolerant of almost everything except intolerance. The capital "C", religious right, Conservative agenda is one of intolerance. It must be stopped.

maikeru:

I'm confused. How can it be a human rights issue? I thought women (humans, I presume) have the right to choose. Where's the problem?

I may have misunderstood, maikeru, you were speaking from experience on the human rights issue that you claim is abortion.

Was that a cry for help? Is someone depriving you of your right? If you need, I can refer you to several clinics. It's your right!

maikeru:
Thanks for the apology, I accept it in the spirit it was given. I still don't think you've dealt with the issues I raised nor with the, in my opinion undeniable, prejudicial nature of much of what appears on Monte Solberg's website. Have you checked it out? I won't insult you by including the url - it's available elsewhere in the comments to Rafe's article.
You might feel a little differently once you've read his post-election comments, particularly those that pertain to a Saskatchewan CPC candidate's defeat at the hands of a member of the Cree First Nation. (Not that Monte mentions that, he's much too clever.) If you are as open-minded as you appear otherwise to be I can't imagine you'd feel as positive about the 'agenda' as you now seem to be after reading that stuff.
As for the rest of what you say, obviously getting, or preventing, a Conservative government in the majority of the seats in this country is what this discussion is all about - something you want and something I fear. I think that'd be a bad thing, on balance, for all of the reasons already advanced - none of which you've actually evidenced any willingness to discuss.
One thing I will say, however, is that it is encouraging to actually have a forum where these things can be talked about in a relatively civil way. As for your comments about the current state of Canadian conservatism, I would still argue that a political philosophy is more than what its current adherents choose to call it and I think there's way too much radical Reform in the mix, alas.
I would advise that you conduct a little experiment though. Go to a 'conservative' website, something like ProudtobeCanadian.ca and post a comment that questions the party line there. See just how long the conversation remains civil and how quickly you find yourself banned from further posts. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts then.

G West:

Notwithstanding the fact that people of the left and the right can come in multiple religious hues, as a left-leaning, small "L" liberal, I was heartened by the election day section of the Province which gave a "bio" of every riding in BC. Specifically, I refer to the section which gave insight into the predominant religions in each riding.

I haven't done a detailed analysis, but I had a sense (and it made me very happy) that in almost all ridings the religion "none" was the most dominant religion. Usually, "none" came in at about 35%-40%. Protestant usually took second place and Catholic, third. However, given what I know about my local riding (my neighbors), it's clear that many are either "Protestant" or "Catholic" in name only.

Add these "nominal" Christians to the "none" group, and you have a society that is a long way from accepting the social conservative dogma of the CPC platform. We on the left must be vigilant, but I don't think we need worry too much. There's a lot more of us than there is of them!

With the outspoken anti-CRTC independent Quebecor inclined to vote CPC, and Mr. Martin apparently not in for the long haul-at what point I wonder will he give up his seat and force a bye-election?

It seems to me that Mr. Martin intends to keep all of his leverage close to ensure that his legacy as a victim of Mr. Chretien's skullduggery (see Gomery final report), and his status as a 'moral hero' will become the overriding mantra of any Liberal Party re-invention. If Mr. Chretien is determined to have his name and ego reinstated, the drama is going to be electric.

Mr. Harper may be hard pressed to garner any attention! Is that what some Tyee reader's are most concerned about?

What will be most interesting is how this Liberal soap opera plays out. At any time if Mr. Martin doesn't like what he is hearing---he can pull the plug on his seat and see how a bye-election plays out with the balance of power in play.

Belinda Stronach was more relevant in her role as 'broker' of the Conservative Party of Canada, although I am a little doubtful that she actually had that much to do with it in fact. I don't think that her political savvy is sufficient for her to be taken as leader of the party although she will be permitted the opportunity. I think she is still more about the money than about ability at this point.

My guess is at the end of the day Ken Dryden will emerge (slowly) as the right choice for the Liberals. He is well liked in urban Canada, and that hockey thing/folklore coupled with the fact that he is a good fellow will make him a very compelling choice for the party.

I think the problem with Canadian society isn't so much its values or its ideology. The establishment is corrupt-the 'club' is crooked, every segment of it from government to self-regulating through to 'organizations'.

We need a more vigilant (ruthless) press one that will stop writing journals and columns as advertorials, and who will stop the bread and circus exposes and actually do the job of protecting the public's interest. It is sadly (pitifully) lacking.

grub
Not sure that I take much comfort from poll respondents who label themselves as anything these days. Clearly there are some ridings, especially in the west, where religious affiliation is critical to electoral results but I agree that most political decisions are likely made on another basis. My problem is simply that a majority 'conservative' government can probably get itself elected in the not very distant future for doing not much more than handing money to special interest groups (you know who they are); for caving to the provinces on sharing tax points; for scraping the gun registry; throwing away the key to the jails and promoting 'accountability' for the next year and a half. The latest data seems to indicate that a free vote on SSM would only just win in the current H of C. see:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060201.wxsamesex01/BNStory/National/

The point is, how do you counter both the indifference of the public and the incurious press to prevent a conservative majority when the next election rolls around. I think Harper has a pretty strong hand.
Hey, I hope you're right, but I'm far from being sanguine about it.

G. West-thanks for the Globe article. I suspect that is a realistic position concerning the potential conservative social agenda. Also, Professor Manfredi finally provided the real insight about Stephen Harper
as a libertarian conservative than a social conservative. This is a significant difference and people should know this up front.

A libertarian would not appreciate how the Liberal government under Chretien and the Supreme Court of Canada POLITICIZED same sex marriage. More specifically, how do you go from voting overwhelmingly against it, to voting for it and co-opting the highest court in an effort to create law by 9/10's possession.

This is not good. The end doesn't justify the means in the mid or long run. The first example of this of course, is the same courts letting allowing the killers of the gay man in Stanley Park get away with virtually no accountability.

Seriously, only people with blinders on can see how this makes any sense to normal right thinking people. It is a little ironic that this same Parliament and our courts-are the objects of disdain, ridicule and lack of confidence.

This isn't the fault of gay men and women who want to do what others are permitted to do, it is however the fault of former PM Chretien and those people in Chretien's government and the courts who failed to understand that material social change in any culture (animal or human) must be done with thought and deliberation, so that when it is completed the majority of society at least understands it, so that acceptance (a more advanced stage than flimsy fickle tolerance) is positively metasisized.

Placing the Faustian label on Harper as a potential reverser of human rights when measured against the political actions of a PM whose legacy at this point is less than stellar
may be ideologically satisfying but intellectually it is a little short of any reasonable standard.

Furthermore, if the Globe article Mr./Ms. G. West provides any insight, a free vote in the House of Commons (which is the only thing promised by PM designate Harper-any other action on his part was clearly dismissed)won't reverse anything.

If anything (and I admit to a second sober thought here Rafe)if the free vote comes now, and it maintains the existing law on same sex marriage it would settle the issue satisfactorily once and for all, as admittedly there is more pressing work to be done in the country, AND Mr. Harper does not need to be politicized in his role relative to the debate BECAUSE it is a free vote.

Perhaps those people who favour the existing marriage laws to include same sex couples should start lobbying for a free vote, it doesn't look like the 'man and woman' marriage only folks would win.

The same may not be said down the road!

Grub re:
As a small "L" liberal, I am tolerant of almost everything except intolerance. The capital "C", religious right, Conservative agenda is one of intolerance. It must be stopped.

By your words you are a small 'r' reactionary - opposed to progress of values you yourself deny.

Quote:
-Many, myself included, think it absolutely necessary to re-visit abortion in light of experience. I personally think it the greatest human-rights issue facing Canadians today.-

I'm confused. How can it be a human rights issue? I thought women (humans, I presume) have the right to choose. Where's the problem?

The problem lies in society being forced to accede to amoral considerations.
There are cultures who place high value on the sex of children, and such values may override every other consideration. - effectively enabling feticide as a means of engineering family structure.

There abortion crosses a line which is only described by the morals of a society - which in turn have come about from progress through experience.

Was that a cry for help? Is someone depriving you of your right? If you need, I can refer you to several clinics. It's your right!
I'm exercising my right to opine online in this here clinic. I hope you find my opinions to be of merit upon reflection.

G West re:
" I still don't think you've dealt with the issues I raised nor with the, in my opinion undeniable, prejudicial nature of much of what appears on Monte Solberg's website. Have you checked it out?

I confess I've only glanced at Solberg's new-age blog site, and would only go there if specifically directed to some comment pertinent to a thread.
otoh, I'll read almost everything over at steynonline - even reader comments. I'll leave it to you to keep an eye on Solberg, and alert you to good Steyn articles in return.

As for the rest of what you say, obviously getting, or preventing, a Conservative government in the majority of the seats in this country is what this discussion is all about - something you want and something I fear. I think that'd be a bad thing, on balance, for all of the reasons already advanced - none of which you've actually evidenced any willingness to discuss.

What's to discuss as yet ? PM2b Harper takes over in a few days, and we'll see then whether their handling of Canadian affairs warrants sufficient support to advance 'fearful' agendas. If so, rest assured that by then the majority of Canadians, perhaps even yourself, will have have taken up such cause.

I would advise that you conduct a little experiment though. Go to a 'conservative' website, something like ProudtobeCanadian.ca and post a comment that questions the party line there. See just how long the conversation remains civil and how quickly you find yourself banned from further posts. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts then.
I'm comfortable in any discussion forum. All have cell-block bullies, and my own ROE preclude empowering them. I'm more interested in what I can learn from literate opinions - even when different from my own - than feeding fanatics.

ROBBINS Sce Research
Thoughtful remarks. Not sure that I agree with your conclusions about judicial activism but it is certainly not fair to claim the the Liberals created the problem. The courts used the Charter to make their decision. You don't happen to agree with it - this is hardly the question now and to keep bringing it up is pointless. In the final analysis, I think we're better off with a court that is independent and not subject to political pressure. On balance I think Canadian courts have been responsible when it comes to interpreting the Charter.

The difficulty in the end is that it is not, in my opinion, appropriate to suggest that we can have a society in which equity and fairness actually mean anything if we have 'categories' of relationships ordered on what are, at bottom, religious considerations. For whatever reason, again in my opinion, we have moved - as a society - past the point where it is valid to make those kinds of distinctions in the secular sphere. Religious freedom is a wonderful thing but in a pluralistic society the emphasis has to be on 'freedom' and not on religion.
I fear that Mr Harper's idea about recognizing same-sex relationships as something 'short' of 'real' marriage is just another example of discrimination and a way to mark out those who are, for whatever reason, not worthy of participating in this society as full citizens. Substitute any other group for gays in a similar equation and you'll see what I mean.
On the other hand, if you were to propose that all marriages in Canada would be, henceforth, civil marriages which could, at a couple's request, be solemnized in a church service then I would have absolutely no problem with that. If Mr Harper were to support such a measure I wouldn't tend to judge him so harshly - but that's not the case.
In conclusion, I wouldn't agree with you that a negative vote in this parliament would settle the issue once and for all.

maikeru
No doubt you're at home on conservative sites. Didn't you understand what I said, and what you so blatantly bolded in your post? The point I made was that you'd have to say something there that was critical of the party line in order to see what the reaction would be. If you really want to take the time to understand what's going on at these websites you need to go there and read what's being posted.
As far as the Solberg site is concerned: if you're not willing to go there and read what he's actually saying don't expect me to cut and paste it into a post for you. I thought you were a thoughtful enough person to make the necessary effort to see why I, and others, have a problem with what some of us see as extreme right wing attitudes. If you're going to take your lead from Mark Steyn, who doesn't even live in this country, without making some effort to understand the attitudes of the people you're supporting then I'm afraid we'll just have to leave it at that. Oh, and you don't actually have to post anything on ProudtobeCanadian.ca just go and read a couple of dozen things posted to the blog by others and you'll get the picture. Believe me, it's no place for a liberal and I can't believe you'd be comfortable there either. Substitute any other word for 'liberal' in the above sentence and you'll see why it seems so creepy.
Cheers.

maikeru:
Just for interest's sake, take a look at this:
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/comments/university_professor_aids/#commentanchor

G West re:
No doubt you're at home on conservative sites. Didn't you understand what I said, and what you so blatantly bolded in your post? The point I made was that you'd have to say something there that was critical of the party line in order to see what the reaction would be. If you really want to take the time to understand what's going on at these websites you need to go there and read what's being posted.

Actually, the bolded portion was intended to be italicized, same as the other quotes, but I entered wrong code and had no preview option to correct the gaffe before posting.

I've seen, from lurking, what sort of comments elicit hostile reaction in several different discussion forums all across the political spectrum. Right now, Tyee doesn't seem entirely politicized to any one pole, nor are expletives a common facet of poorly crafted posts.

re: http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/
The site looks quite well done for a blog. To each their own.

G West

Well put. It puts me in mind of the recent outrage of Euro Muslims about cartoons in the Euro media depicting Mohamed. I'm with the media on this one; "tough!" on the Muslim (or any religious) community. Freedom of expression and of the media trumps religious sensibilities.

G West-I don't know how you could NOT agree with my conclusions about judicial activism as this relates to the same sex marriage question.

My position in irrefutable. Historical revisionists have a place in politics, they don't in light of our history of legal precedent and stare decisis (doctrine).

Supreme Court Decisions of The Constitution 1981 (Lorimer) provides us with a good basis upon which to understand how the Supreme Court of Canada operated up and including the time of the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution. All decisions at the top level can be attributed to legal precedent and when there is a deviation as this might be construed as activism it is incremental..conservative to be sure.

Although historically considered a 1982 document the Charter did not become into being practically speaking until 1983. Once again the Supreme Court of Canada was very cautious in any interpretations as this related to the new scope of decision under the Charter that were made.

All of these decisions followed the same path. Decision at lower court-Appeal to Court of Appeal-Application to Supreme Court of Canada. The history of our judicial system is based on the Rule of Law. Our parliament is based on responsible government. The history of the Rule of Law is as I have indicated about legal precedent.

Supreme Court Judges were right to be cautious about taking a 'question relating to same sex marriage' from Parliament. They were concerned about the appearance of a court that would ultimately bring its reputation into an interpreter of law into serious question.

This question provided to the Supreme Court which it responded to was not predicated on an application from a Decision from the lower court. As a consequence, in the public domain I assert that the line between Parliament and the Rule of Law in Canada has become blurred.

You may be right on this count. A free vote will have to be held sometime, but it is likely that someone, or some group will take it back to the courts (questioning another right), this will be heard and the applications will be heard again until they arrive (where AG Plant should have sent in in the first place-to the Court of Appeal) and than onto the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Rule of Law should have been followed. Instead the issue was wholly politicized which in my opinion has cheapened the Charter-and brought the Court into dubious repute.

ROBBINS Sce Research
Well, I don't agree and I'm not alone as you well know. Blogs are not an appropriate place to argue constitutional law. The rule of law was followed. You don't agree with the way the Court respected precedent and interpreted the Charter and you're not alone but there is a considerable body of legal opinion that doesn't have any problem with the way the decisions went. I agree that the cleavage line between these two points of view is a critical matter right now but I don't accept your premises and you don't accept mine.

To me that's no problem. If this matter eventually ends up being decided in favour of your point of view I'll live with it. I just wish that most activists who want to slap down the court in this matter realized what the negative consequences may well be.

And in the end, I defy you to justify why this shouldn't be a human rights issue, period. As such the current ratio of the court is in perfect keeping, in my opinion, with the spirit and intent of the Charter. I don't want to go back to pre - 1982 times and I don't want religious groups of any kind to determine the 'rights' of my fellow citizens.

I assume you're well enough read to recognize that most of the arguments about the place of marriage in western society - as a fundamental principle it is has more relevance as a factor in property law than it does as a keystone of cultural values - are mere sophistry and that marriage as we have known it is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Also, the reference of cases and questions to the Supreme Court, without going through the costly process of appeals is hardly such a terrible thing - I would have thought you'd want to save the money by cutting to the chase. If the Rule of Law is that fragile then we are in more trouble than even you and I imagine.

Anyway, it's been fun - I think you're wrong but I don't think you're meanspirited. C'est la vie!

maikeru
You must be joking! Did you read the comments in the blog? He has cleaned up the link I posted earlier,look at this one and see if you come to the same conclusion:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/comments/cbc_suggestsheil_harper_thatd_be_a_mistake/#commentanchor

by the way, no problem about the bold/italics thing, just thought you were shouting. Have you gone to read what Solberg's actually saying yet?

Robbins
I've very much enjoyed reading your last few posts herein. They've been well balanced and interesting.

maikeru:

Pay particular attention to the exchanges from 51 to 77 and then come back and tell me what you think of the blog

G West
The second link attempt led to a heated discussion springing from a CBC gaffe, and contained a potpourri of both the cogent and the ludicrous remarks I have come to associate with discussion forums generally.

I note that the moderator stepped in and banned one of the posters, while ignoring others making mean-spirited comments.
It's the nature of the beast, at times the online equivalent of 'Survivor' , itself a crude derivative of the maxim 'honi soit qui mal y pense' - roughly translated as 'Evil be to he who evil thinks' - although 'honi soit' in ancient French more meant 'exile' - a fate worse than death.

maikeru
THe moderator was in it up to his neck, he refused to actually discuss anything, then stepped in with a magister dixit. That is not, in my opinon anything like an intelligent discussion and is, in my humble opinion mala in se. I'm sorry, but anyone who calls these people allies is in clear danger of succumbing to fascism. You do yourself no credit by making excuses for the devil. Such displays of intemperance (and Mr Solberg - and what he has to say on his website are not very different) are dangerous and need to be pointed out and decried. Translating the latin is not, by the way, necessary.

G West
The moderator of that discussion is guilty as charged, and merits your harshest punishment. Carry on as you see fit.
re:
"You do yourself no credit by making excuses for the devil."
Excuse me ?
I lurked there and reported back, as ordered.
Now you besmirch me?
The Devil with you !!

Such displays of intemperance as found there are a by-product of online discussion forums and are to be seen in that light. Behind the keyboard are fellow Canadians exposing thoughts to strangers much more candidly than when restrained by earthly conventions.

I won't link you to a like discussion from the opposite end of the spectrum as it serves no purpose other than to show that many tormented souls find comfort in cyberspace flaming.

maikeru
My point was, in respect of the above, that you ought to look more closely at Mr Solberg - that's all - I felt that you'd dealt far too circumspectly with him - therefore the expression 'making excuses'. He is, for his part, only a breath away from having the power to actually implement some of this same kind of hatefulness. I stand by what I said, if you'd countenance his kind of prejudice then you are, in my opinion, making excuses for the devil. He is somewhat more suave in his delivery and seems to have a penchant for the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins but that does not hide what he's really all about, again in my opinion.

I reiterate my criticism of him and those who apologize for him and what he, unfortunately, represents. If I went too far, I'm sorry, in the future I'll try to aequam servare mentem, as it were. On the other hand, I make no excuses for whatever the 'opposite end of the spectrum' may be saying but I don't think either extreme merits your calling them tormented souls. The torment is all inflicted on the victims of their hatefulness, alas.

G West, I see you are busy, but you are very smart so I don't think you will mind if I go on with one more comment.

I think you missed my point. I didn't want to get nto the Constitutionality of anything, honest. The Supreme Court never dealt with same sex marriage in terms of the absolute Rule of Law, which your rebut presumes.

In fact your response is evidence of what I am trying to convey. The Supreme Court of Canada never dealt with same sex marriage in terms of its Constitutionality, that is under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it only provided a response to a question from Parliament.

I don't mean to slap down the courts, and if I sound disrespectful I don't feel that way about it, I am simply commenting on the activities of a body relative to its mandate and its history. Most people believe that this matter went before the Courts, ie from a lower court. It did not. What I said was, the courts only history is as an interpreter of law made by Parliament. Even the history of dealing with Charter arguments went very slowly. This same sex matter is probably the choppiest waters ever experienced (not) by the courts.

I would never try to justify that this isn't a human rights issue, it is. We agree on this. But if it is a human rights issue than it is a Charter issue which makes it a legal issue, which makes our history of stare decisis absolutely relavent. Trust me, I am not trying to impose my humble knowledge of these matters on the entire legal community.

If we are speaking about the Charter which forms part of the Constitution than we are speaking about the whole of the question as this relates to same sex marriage which ought to have come to the Supreme Court of Canada, front and centre.

Yes, Parliament makes laws, this is how it ought to be. Judges should interpret laws, this is how it ought to be. My whole assertion is that we would have been further ahead is (a) the legislation that was passed in the House went to a free vote, rather than a quasi restricted vote, or (b) the issue as a Charter Right moved up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court, as a determination of law, not as a "question from Parliament" which in my view denigrates the courts historical role. If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would not be happy with this history. There is more ambiguity than finality at this juncture, and frankly that is more unfair to anyone who values human rights, in this case, same sex couples who have a desire to be together and be legally recognized.

Thank you for recognizing that I wasn't intending to pontificate with other peoples rights and freedoms, I am simply sitting on a position of debate. Everyone should have the right to be happy and free.

ROBBINS Sce Research
If we agree on the fundamentals there isn't much else to debate. In the final analysis there is no doubt that Charter arguments are new dicta because of the relative youth of the Charter itself. In this one, the court actually gave parliament the opportunity to legislate and the parliament, as was its right, adjudged that the right course was to act as it did. That is, after all, the principle of representative democracy.

If we end up with a decision which respects the human rights of a recognizable minority it seems to me that our argument here is a question of the good chasing the perfect in an imperfect world.

What is problematic, in my opinion, is what is likely to happen - given the promises made by the current party in power - when it has accorded itself sufficent seats in the legislature to override those minority rights.

I'm sorry, but given the background of all the rascals in the Common House, then and now, I
think I'd have preferred the devil I knew to the one I've only heard about.

In any case, bonne chance Mr Harper has a job of work on his hands, no question!

G West re:
If we end up with a decision which respects the human rights of a recognizable minority it seems to me that our argument here is a question of the good chasing the perfect in an imperfect world.
The same would apply had a different tack been chosen. as other countries have done in recognizing civil unions and marriage as different avenues to the same destination.

What is problematic, in my opinion, is what is likely to happen - given the promises made by the current party in power - when it has accorded itself sufficent seats in the legislature to override those minority rights.
Which promises made by the CPC are so problematical for you, and
how does the CPC 'accord itself sufficient seats' without electoral support ?

I'm sorry, but given the background of all the rascals in the Common House, then and now, I think I'd have preferred the devil I knew to the one I've only heard about.
The Liberals rode that maxim into the ground, then whipped it in frenzied effort to make glue from the remains.

maikeru
Look, you obviously don't want to deal with what I've said about what the 'reform' wing of the conservative party believes in. That's why I keep asking you to read what Monte Solberg has said about people from the three most populous cities in this country and what he believes about Canadians of First Nations ancestry.

It is exactly those attitudes and prejudices that trouble me. I worry that the party may get electoral support because it has the ability, possessing as it does, full coffers, to 'buy' enough support to get a majority government in the next election - whenever that comes.

My prediction is that Mr Harper, who is a very intelligent politician, if not a terribly forthright one, will do everything from a fiscal and monetary point of view that is necessary to garner more votes in the next election. Most voters are more concerned with paying next month's bills than they are about worrying over someone else's rights.

I think that's how he'll get elected and I think that's clear from virtually everything I've posted so far. I can't understand where the confusion is.

Clearly you trust him a lot more than I do. I can't understand that, given how carefully he avoided dealing with any of these issues during the campaign.

A lot of narrow minded bigots seem to think Stephen Harper is the answer to their dreams, I've pointed out to you some of the rocks they live under. In my opinion, with friends like that, who needs enemies.

By the way, I can't understand why you'd say, in a previous post, that you felt you'd been 'lurking' at the website we were discussing. Surely it's a public place and you had every right to be there and see what kind of drivel was being posted.
Anyway, it is way too late, good night.

G West-Thanks-I think we are doing well on that. What specifically are you speaking about Mr. Solberg, can I get to the point just going to his site?

I think Maikeru, you and I are in the final analysis in our opinion about how Mr. Harper's government is going to react. As I indicated, I can assure you this will not be a reactionary or ideological government. It may not be 'sexy' Liberal as intellectual, just pragmatic as opposed to dogmatic. Watch and see.

I will look at Mr. Solberg later after meetings, but if there is a specific point I am invested and would like to take a look.

If you are sick of the discussion I will just read and let it go.

Glen P.

G West-I know it isn't new but I am just coming back around to this minority rights question. Why is it that everyone who chooses to marry simply treated under the law as civil union including men and women, and than the churches have the right to solemnize the marriage (sanctify the marriage) as they see fit.

There are really two thought of Christian religion. The doctrinairres and Jesus as man. The latter would never have accepted some of the Gucci shoed folks that sit in the front pews. He wouldn't accept financiers. His message (new testament) is simply about love. The writings in the bible are from his followers, and the more literate once takes the bible the more inclined they are to be against same sex marriage.

Religion isn't the issue in my opinion, that can be solved rather easily. Sociology is the question. Just as 4% of the public is clearly rotten- there is a 'basis' percentage of the public that is homophobic in an evil and dangerous way, those who would do harm to gays, and who are inflamed with the emergence of marriage as an issue. The more trenched a solution becomes in the body politic, and the more clear the message to 'evil' homophobics who may do harm, that we are going to be very tough on them if they act out than we have this sociologically considered.

Mr. Harper has the temperment and the means to deal with this aspect of this question in a bi-partisan fashion. There is no doubt in my mind that reasonable men and women can solve this without hyperbole. As I said, I do not believe that religion in the fundamental sense will interfere with the decision.

ROBBINS Sce Research
Look at Solberg's home page; read everything he's written since the election - you'll get the point.

I think we should let this go, more sound than light at this point. Obviously I am troubled by what I see as the radical reform influence on Mr Harper's. I'm troubled by the lack of character of many of the yahoos who support him and I'm troubled by what I see as a streak of disingenuousness in Mr Harper himself.

Do I think he can change and rise above these limitations?
I won't rule it out, but there has been an arrogance and meanspiritedness about much of what he's written and most of what he's said prior to this election campaign that make me doubt that.
A lot has been said about Paul Martin's ambition to be Prime Minister; this has been contrasted with Mr Harper's supposed indifference to power as a form of personal aggrandizement. The media have characterized this as something of a feather in Mr Harper's cap. In my opinion this is confused thinking: Mr Harper's commitment is to an agenda of radical change and I see no reason to view this any more positively than Paul Martin's personal ambition. In fact, it may well mean that he (Harper)is incapable of functioning with the pragmatism that I think is necessary to administer the affairs of a complex and pluralistic modern state.
He may surprise me, but I doubt it and I'll keep my powder dry. I hope somehow the country will survive Mr Harper and remain whole.
It's been fun. Have a good weekend!

Late to the plate:
The biggest windbag in this election was obvious, and the moving truck proves it.

D-oh!

If Harper survives 2 years he will win a majority (my prediction).

If you would bloody well come out of the closet Rafe you would admit that the best use of the buck seventy-five was for gutting the pig and voting for proportional rep. Give Jack a chance to do that at least through a referendum. This was the only real change offered, the rest was just cover material from past elections brought to you by a group elite that does not really give a flying **** about you or me. And it sells (the real shame).

As for the new storm a brewin in Quebec, dammit if they wanna leave they can legally do it through clarity. Like the great Western murmur can if they want. Both stupid ideas in my opinion.

btw Rafe the discourse you are having with your readers is really overdue for a media that rants about transparency and accountability then hides behinds the electronic wall. And seeing as some of those types read here let me just say this; I'm sick of you, kiss my ass!

C'mon Rafe, it's way past time for you to jump onto you're liitle put-put and sail away into the sunset. It's been a great ride but I think
it's over...
Say goodnight Rafe !

robbons re:
Mr. Harper has the temperment and the means to deal with this aspect of this question in a bi-partisan fashion. There is no doubt in my mind that reasonable men and women can solve this without hyperbole.

There's the keyword - 'reasonable'.
I believe that what reasonable people have done in Canada is to turn away from societal change justified only by derogation of values etched into Canadian society.

The Liberal election campaign, essentially ' The devil you know is better than the devil you don't' was evidence of efforts to impose a lax mindset upon Canadians - by their governors - rather than promising governance which best represents it's employers - the public.

Stephen Harper's public personna - which in turn trumps all other CPC MP's and any MP but for the Leader of the Loyal Opposition - is crucial to Canadian's identity issues.

Simply put - Harper has the aura of a 'reasonable' man.
A Canadian.

G West re:
Mr Harper's commitment is to an agenda of radical change and I see no reason to view this any more positively than Paul Martin's personal ambition. In fact, it may well mean that he (Harper)is incapable of functioning with the pragmatism that I think is necessary to administer the affairs of a complex and pluralistic modern state.
He may surprise me, but I doubt it and I'll keep my powder dry. I hope somehow the country will survive Mr Harper and remain whole.

That is as chary and contradictory an endorsement as I've ever seen.

a) Stephen Harper has united the disparate objectives of many Canadians under one roof. No mean feat.

b) He has, by his commitment and endurance, risen to command a party supported by more Canadians than any other - including a party that had the opportunity to parade before the public their record of achievement after governing the world's best country for over a decade.

c) Your powder has already been spent on Monte Solberg and gay-bashing wingnuts posting to obscure blogsites, and you keep a dry reserve ready to strike flint at PM2b Harper if values you don't share are given consideration.

d) If Canada does not remain whole it will be due to the radical changes introduced here since Pierre Elliot Trudeau became PM in 1968 and set about creating the UCSP - Union of Canadian Socialist Provinces.
It is utterly impossible that it could be due the election of Stephen Harper as PM of Canada in 2006.

d) 'honi soit qui mal y pense' is not Latin - it's French

e) 'lurking' is the correct - even politically - term for viewing but not posting to a discussion forum.

maikeru:
Your somewhat less than civil post this morning requires a response on my part.
You want to do it point by point, so be it:

1. That is as chary and contradictory an endorsement as I've ever seen.
It’s not an endorsement! You clearly haven’t been paying attention. I think Mr Harper is a dangerous ideologue and I wish he’d never become Prime Minister. I fear, as virtually everything I’ve written in this far too long discussion, that he will be able to manipulate gullible people into supporting him in the next election and he will then attempt to turn this country into a pale imitation of the fundamentalist Empire south of the 49th parallel. I hope that’s not the case but nothing you’ve said has made me any less nervous about the outcome of Mr Harper’s program.

2. Stephen Harper has united the disparate objectives of many Canadians under one roof. No mean feat. Has he really united them in anything other than a fierce desire to attain power and find some outlet for a lot of deep-seated western resentment? Time will tell, he’s also left out a lot of minorities, alas.

3.He has, by his commitment and endurance, risen to command a party supported by more Canadians than any other... Same point you’ve already made above, you restate the obvious. Mr Harper ran a better campaign than the Liberals. So what, that has almost nothing to do with what we’re talking about. It proves he’s a competent Politician with shrewd handlers with a lot of money behind him.

4.Your powder has already been spent on Monte Solberg and gay-bashing wingnuts posting to obscure
Pardon me. Are you suggesting that hateful websites are only about Gay bashing? You need to go back and look again. There are a lot more hateful agendas there than just criticizing homosexuals. Substitute the word Jew for Liberal, CBC, academic and any of probably a dozen other targets of hatred and maybe you’ll see what I mean.
As for Monte Solberg, have you ever gone to his website and look at what he says about anyone that lives in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal and his willingness to look at their problems and concerns? Have you ever taken a moment to analyze what he’s saying about First Nations citizens? I didn’t take the trouble to cut and paste the actual words because I gave you the credit of being able to actually read and understand what he was saying yourself. If you’re not willing to do that, we really shouldn’t waste any more time talking.

4. If Canada does not remain whole it will be due to the radical changes introduced here since Pierre Elliot Trudeau became PM in 1968...
Your point about what Trudeau did is utter nonsense – you need to stop living in the past and pretending that pre-1968 Canada was some kind of Utopia. It wasn’t . I’ve lived in every part of this country (with the exception of Atlantic Canada) and I’m old enough to know and remember. It is a more just, more fair and far more inclusive society today that it was then, period. UCSP - You embarrass yourself when you throw around labels like that. As for what will happen in the future, I only said I ‘feared’ the outcome of Mr Harper’s regime. Like most ideologues you seem far more convinced that you’ve captured the real truth of what will happen tomorrow than the rest of us imperfect mortals.

5. I know it’s French. I was the one using Latin – I just wasn’t going to translate it for you!

6.'lurking' This is absurd and illogical: I don't accept that appropriate behavior is any different in the real world than it is in cyber space. Looking at what anyone posts in a public space is never lurking: it is the public duty of intelligent and moral citizens to be aware of what is happening in their society, what people are thinking and what threats there are to what they cherish and believe in. Words don't somehow change their meaning on the internet.

maikeru:
I've re-read our earlier posts above, in the order they were written, and I'd have to say that I think your reaction to what I'd said (about making common cause with the devil) was unfair. I may have gone too far in that characterization but I was, in fact, reacting to this:

The second link attempt led to a heated discussion springing from a CBC gaffe, and contained a potpourri of both the cogent and the ludicrous remarks I have come to associate with discussion forums generally.

This statement, as well as your seeming indifference to the other matter I had directed your attention toward, I took to be, as I said, 'making excuses' for the devil and dismissing lightly both words and characterizations (on the websites we’d been discussing) that were uncalled for and disgusting.
On the other point, I'm surprised at your sense that looking into the postings on a public website is 'lurking'. No subscription is required and the site is a putative forum for public discussion and debate: If anyone ought to be ashamed of the material there it's not the casual observer who comes to the forum expecting to find something quite different from the hate that ‘lurks’ there – res ipsa loquitur.
Even so, there is no ill-will on my part and, as I said immediately above, I'm sorry if what I said was at all hurtful. However, given the tone of your first post this morning I'm not so certain I shouldn't retract my apology - your French aphorism might well be turned back on you if you're not careful.

Maikeru has confidence in Mr. Harper. G. West does not.

Maikeru- With all due respect, do you mind clarifying the paragraph immediately under ' that's the key word reasonable'-I keep re-reading it but maybe I am just pretending I get that point-when I don't quite.

Thanks Glen P.

G West
Over the course of remarks made by either on of us in this thread there is no evidence of the moronic "I'm sick of you, kiss my ass!" ravings that pop up with dull regularity in online discussion forums.

Such comments by others have surfaced herein however, reinforcing my comment about both cogent and ludicrous statements being part and parcel of online discussion forums.

I do disagree with your comment that 'words don't somehow change their meaning on the internet' - as clearly they do.
Whereas the word 'lurk' carries with it negative connotation on dry land, it has a neutral meaning in the lexicon of cyberspace, as the following 'Wikipedia' entry illustrates:

lurk

"Lurking" refers to the act of being a member of or often visiting an online messageboard community, but not posting, contributing, or even allowing other members to know you are present in any way. Often a characteristic of new and inexperienced forum-goers, it is sometimes also employed by more seasoned members of an online community who have tired of participating in the sometimes treacherous discussions that occur in many online communities, and so prefer to lurk and watch others play out a topic.

Without the various other signs that go along with oral discussion, online discussions are fraught with misunderstandings that can spring simply from unfamiliarity with the medium.

I don't believe you are an unreasonable person, or have framed your concerns in a manner discourteous to me or disrespectful of the privilege that attends posting to a public forum.

I trust you feel likewise about my own opinions.

Glenn P
I have to dash to a birthday party for a 90![ year old friend.
I'll endeavour to clarify the statement at first opportunity.

Cheers !

maikeru:
I'm afraid I'll have to reject your turning to Wikipedia as any kind of an authority, sorry. I'll stick with the OED and ignore a source that allows its users to adapt a text at a whim. You might want to read Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language - it's a much better guide than Wikipedia. As another example, take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Heather Stilwell to see what I mean.

In any case, the definition is really irrelevant. Civilized public discourse and communication is far more important than the trite conventions and affectations of internet blogs.

I stand by my statement that people who present their ideas in public forums invite anyone, by both convention and definition, to look at those discussions and ideas and to citicize them. That many of the people who support your political party seem to be the kind of people who will not countenance either questions or comments, let alone disagreement or debate, reflects badly on that political party - in my opinion. They do your cause no good.

I think you need to look again at what you'll accept in those who share your philosophy. And, I think it's the duty of you and people like you to deal with the intemperance of these fellow-travellers. They are certainly not going to listen to me. For my part, I'll wash my hands of these fascists and pray they never get to use their poisonous attitudes to affect the lives of people who have a legitmate right to say they are 'proud to be Canadian.'

Enjoy the party!

I have been following this discussion with interest. I do have to say, though, I am appalled at the tone of the proudtobecanadian website. Call me naive, but I cannot believe there are Canadians "out there" who are so obviously Bush repugnant types. I mean the site supports Coulter, Hannity, Rush, etc. How scary is that? Coulter, who has said Tim McVeigh was a hero but should have bombed the NY Times instead. Last week she advocated putting rat poison in the food of the democratic supreme court justice and appoint another repugnant. Then laughed and said it was "just a joke." Rush Limbaugh, a pain med junkie, who is so viscious and hasn't got a compassionate bone in his big fat body. Got a pass on going to VN because of a butt cyst. Yet advocates sending young people off to be killed in the most immoral war of this time. Have you ever watched Hannity or O'Reilly on Fox news? They give new meaning to repugnant.

I am no fan of Harper and am still trying to recover from election night. I do believe he has a hidden agenda that is more in line with Bush's. The US has lost and is losing respect on a daily basis around the world. Why any Canadian would want to align themselves, even remotely, with a war-mongering, arrogant, corrupt administration is beyond me. Naive I am, I guess. While I don't trust Harper or his supporters, I didn't feel I had to distrust him THAT much.

I read a lot of posts at salon.com in the politics thread. Go there and see reasoned discussion on life in the US today. There are a handful of looney tunes, much like those on the proudtobecanadian site, but the majority are thoughtful and insightful. It is not a pretty picture in the US today for the citizens who believe in equality, justice, human rights etc. Canada will be heading down that same path if Harper can pull off fooling Canadians then getting a majority next time around.

With each day that passes I lose a little more faith in the citizens of this country.

Glen P. re:
My earlier statement:
' I believe that what reasonable people have done in Canada is to turn away from societal change justified only by derogation of values etched into Canadian society.'

To the extent that Canada as a Dominion was guided by values derived mainly from the UK and France, it's societal mores were primarily a reflection of those cultures.

Efforts to create a 'Just Society' have caused virtually every facet of Canadian society to be opened for inspection and/or criticism and condemnation.

'Traditional' social mores such as belief in heterosexual marriage - however deeply etched into Canadian society it may have been - is subject to derogation as being opposed to and suppresive of inalienable human rights.

That perspective has not caught fire in Canada so much as lit fires of concern that social engineering through government regulation no more guarantees a healthy society downstream than one guided by religious platitude.

maikeru and ROBBINS Sce Research:
I should mention to both of you, and anyone else who has been following this discussion, that in order to appreciate what I've been saying about Mr Solberg and his attitudes you have to look at the current diary entries (for February) and the entries (now archived) for the January days since the election on Jan 23. If you only look at the current entries on his website you won't have seen the material I found so questionable and you'll think I'm making a lot of fuss about nothing. Not to say that I'm terribly impressed about his musings over the environment which appear in diary entries for February. Sorry if there was any confusion.
CHeers,

G West re:

I'm afraid I'll have to reject your turning to Wikipedia as any kind of an authority, sorry. I'll stick with the OED and ignore a source that allows its users to adapt a text at a whim.

Wikipedia is a great cyberspace resource. You may continue to pretend that the word 'lurk' is restricted to current OED meaning as long as you wish, or until an OED update is released which includes
modern usage of the word.

That many of the people who support your political party seem to be the kind of people who will not countenance either questions or comments, let alone disagreement or debate, reflects badly on that political party - in my opinion. They do your cause no good.[/b]

I take it then that all supporters of whichever party you support will countenance debate on abortion.
If not, why not ?

[i] I think you need to look again at what you'll accept in those who share your philosophy. And, I think it's the duty of you and people like you to deal with the intemperance of these fellow-travellers. They are certainly not going to listen to me.

Here I'll join them in ignoring your bidding.

For my part, I'll wash my hands of these fascists and pray they never get to use their poisonous attitudes to affect the lives of people who have a legitmate right to say they are 'proud to be Canadian.'

I don't see a lot of difference between your attitude and those whom you condemn for theirs.

G West
The second paragraph quoted above is malformed by code error.

I don't really have any interest in side-tracking this thread into examination of what Monte Solberg means to the future of Canada.
I'll accept that you take exception to his views, as is your right.

Cheers !

maikeru:
Who exactly is attacking or 'derogating' heterosexual marriage? I certainly am not aware of anyone who has suggested that the values of traditional marriage are in any way in conflict with anyone's human rights. In fact, it seems to me that those who support the extention of marriage rights to same-sex couples are arguing precisely the opposite. They are saying that denying a significant minority of our fellow citizens the human right of having their loving relationships recognized by the state is a blatant suppression of their human rights.

Furthermore, you still seem to believe prediluvian Canadian society was some kind of idyllic scene. I assure you it was not and I can cite any number of examples from the treatment of blacks in Nova Scotia to the status of Native Indians on Vancouver Island; from the internment of Japanese Canadians and the seizure of their property during the war to the denial of citizenship to Chinese Canadians; from the lot of women with no reliable contraception to the kind of discrimination a French Canadian encountered trying to find a good job in Regina or Calgary or Ottawa for that matter. To suggest that this society has not made significant progress in terms of universal health care, the enhanced status of women and children, the recognition of minority rights and the end of blatant discrimination against Jews and other religious minorities is wilful blindness, in my opinion. God help us if we ever go back to the dreary days when we relied on generosity and caritasinstead of government regulation. You may want to go back, I'd prefer to move forward, thank you very much!

maikeru
I'm afraid you've lost me. I can make absolutely no sense of what you've posted, sorry.

As for Monte Solberg, don't by any means take my word for it, but don't think the issue is a side-track either. If you're not curious enough to look at what he's saying then I'm not going to spend any more time posting in pages of text. I was trying to clarify because what I had said earlier appeared to me to be somewhat confusing in light of the situation I observed when I revisited Mr Solberg's site myself earlier this evening. If I've confused you, I'm sorry.

Obviously, my judgment about the party you support is formed on the basis of the information I have available - if you want to ignore that (or the other material we've discussed) then I can do nothing about it. He is odds on to become a minister in the upcoming government and that is, again in my opinion, a real problem.

As for my reference to fascists, it is quite clear who I was referring to and you know it - to pretend something else at this late stage is neither fair nor accurate and hardly in keeping with the tone we've managed to observe throughout this conversation, as I'm sure you realized after you finished the post.

So very well said that it bears repeating.

True that.

Harper's NCC agenda.

- decentralize federal powers -
smaller government to create a weaker economy and fed powers to create a better environment for Quebec or Alta separation.
- elected Triple E senate -
smaller numbers are easier to bribe.
- privatize CBC -
corporate control of media.
- privatize healthcare and all crown corps including insurance.
for corporate control, of course.
- get rid of the RCMP -
easier to create environments for separation of the provinces.
- provinces collect incometaxes and pensions -
for more of the same.
- remove gag laws-
so corporations and special interest groups can influence the outcomes of elections.
- put veils on third party contributions -
Harper and NCC have successfully done this in 2004, to hid oil and church cheques. The NCC's propaganda was the main reason for major court costs with the gun registry, the NEP and other federal programs to numerous to list, with big money coming from the States and major U.S. corporate interests.
- strengthen property rights -
More corporate control.
- do away with immigration of non whites.
divide the country to conquer it.
- do away with bilingualism and multiculturalism.
more of the same.
- get rid of the wheat board -
for more corporate control.

Anyone who is dumb enough to dispute the Conservative agenda should check out the National Citizens Coalition website, as well as do searches on what the web has to say about this organization. Readers can remind themselves that Stephen Harper was the president of this lobby group for 5 years, from 1998 to 2002. This organization has had the same, redneck, pro U.S. agenda since 1967, has been the primary supporter of the western separatist Reform party, and Harper has been the leader of both. For anyone dumb enough to dispute these words, and either vote or support this Canadian traitor, they are also likely to dumb to read.

The US will at some point eye up this country in its entirety within this century, I think, and they've had sucess already considering the fact that they already own quite a bit of us. U.S. corporate ownership of this country is the new battleground. Why go through the expense of building a military with money, when enough money can buy you a country?

To think that we could stand a chance at defending our borders... Occupation would be a hard thing for any country to do in Canada considering the size of this country... but as we know, we don't have much of a military to begin with and what we do have, the U.S. knows everything about.

It is far easier to get rid of the Canadian identity, like the CBC and media hallmarks that can remind us Canadians of who we really are. Easier to control the media, easier to buy our resources through the markets, easier to set the trade rules and control our economy through union busting, privatization, changes in the law, division of provinces, things like that through traitors like Harper, then it is to roll the tanks. Its easier and its cheaper.

In 2003, the U.S. Empire consumed 1.540 billion tonnes of oil. In the same year, the U.S. empire produced 1.7118 billion tonnes of oil. A quarter of this oil was produced in the States. The rest of the oil produced was from other countries that the U.S. declared corporate income from producing. It was countries like Canada, Mexico, Africa, and until recently, all of South America including Brasil.

The big questions is... how much time is the empire willing to give to take us over from the inside? Are Canadians dumb enough to allow it to happen? And if we aren't dumb enough... what are our alternatives?

Shifts in military thinking from support for empirical causes to defending our nation from such causes, are the actual effect of Canadians realizing the need to defend our borders in all respects, from the media and markets, to laws and environmental concerns that keep our countries identity distinct in its own right, a country that has the balls to stand up for the citizens that make this country what it is.

Unfortunately, to do this, Canadians have to have their shit together, and we don't. Look at the NEP program and why it failed. It took more than the Harpers National Citizens Coalition to break it. The entire program created East West conflict, as the West was under the brainwashed propaganda of the US oil companies backing organizations like the NCC back then, and the West wasn't in the position to buy their resouces. The whole thing was seen as an Eastern takeover for Quebec profit, and in some ways, it was. In some ways, this country would have benefited from Alberta in a way Alberta didn't like and Alberta's solution was? Listen to the NCC's propaganda instead.

In some ways, Canadians just aren't that smart. In every way, the Feds should have encouraged Alberta ownership of their own resources, and tax the profits thereof, but they didn't, and the concept of the NEP, however ideologically superior it was to todays Emperical ownership of our oil instead, was dead.

Emperical takeovers happen on many fronts. The idea is to own and control. Its high time we woke up to what the interests of the US empire really are, and what their gameplan is to accomplish it. A good look at Harpers last 20 years in politics is a treatise on how the US has tried and succeeded in controlling the very government that we trust to protect and serve our country at present.

maikeru and ROBBINS Sce Research

So, what do you think of Mr Harper's high sense of morality now? Does this mean he's no longer a principled statesman as he's more than willing to accept one of those dastardly 'Liberals' into his fold? Power corrupts absolutely I guess.

Just heard Mr Harper avoid answering a simple question with reference to his "courting" of David Emerson. I guess his habit of dissembling wasn't just for the purpose of the campaign. I'm feeling less and less comfortable with these guys. I thought they were all about grass roots support and accountabiliy - I guess it was all talk.

G West
re:
So, what do you think of Mr Harper's high sense of morality now? Does this mean he's no longer a principled statesman as he's more than willing to accept one of those dastardly 'Liberals' into his fold? Power corrupts absolutely I guess.

Heck, I think the Stronach - Emerson trade will help the rookies settle in as a team - and the Fortier appointment is right out of Trudeau's playbook.

“You can observe a lot just by watching.”
-Yogi Berra -

But maikeru, you said he was different! After all in Belinda's case she did the soliciting while here we're told that Harper went after Emerson's pathetic hide. I think it's very different and a clear moral failure of Mr Harper's part. Sorry.

G West- although I am not displeased to be connected to Maikeru necessarily, nor would I be displeased to be connected to you (in the blog intro), considering what we were discussing at the time, I cannot see how you are able to create and esoteric sense of dialogue between you and Maikeru and me based on new information, that is the Emerson case.

I presume that you would agree with me there.

If the litmus test is pure political ethics, than Mr. Emerson's defection is in the strictest sense unethical. I do not want to be perceived as an apologist, but I'll carry that baggage for the sake of the discussion.

I suppose that a regional argument can be made for the solicitation to Mr. Emerson, and this is consistent with Mr. Harper's admission that he contacted Mr. Emerson.

Mr. Emerson could have said, "I did not know about the full story surrounding the Dingwall matter-that is the federal Liberals saying he resigned when he was apparently fired-and no disclosure of the facts of the matter which were available prior to Election Day."

Mr. Emerson could have said that this was too much for him, he had a right to know-if he didn't-and that is why he left the Liberals. This is fair.

Mr. Harper could say (well actually he couldn't so I will say it for him) that he might have won many more seats had the Liberals not lied again, so (using the 2 wrongs are okay in politics), I'm going to take one of your best guys-David Emerson as a trade-off.

To really walk the fine line on this (and sound like a lawyer making the laundry list of arguments), the deal was actually made while the Liberals were still in government, and could have been made at the time the information had come out about the Liberals lying over Mr. Dingwall, and accordingly as a result was not technically made by the Conservative government which had yet to be sworn in. No-one crossed the floor as Parliament wasn't sitting at the time.

The Liberals have no case to complain, however the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois have every reason to complain.

I suppose (and this is the last of my attempts to rationalize this) that one might say Mr. Harper has placed himself in a position because of this where he will have to be completely spotless from now on or he will be tagged with Emerson and Fournier repeatedly.

Politically, I don't think this will actually be linked to accountability legislation per se, however he will be tagged with this likely more on the Fournier side of the equation as talk of Senate elections comes up which impacts more on Mr. Fournier than Mr. Emerson.

Also, I suspect the 2010 Olympic file is dirty, and Mr. Harper will want to say-if you want us to help we want Mr. Emerson to be involved more directly.

Also, Mr. Harper is aware that his party does not have a 'provincial wing'-Mr. Emerson has infinitely more political credibility than Gordon Campbell, who has stated he is hanging around. Someone in BC needs to know what they are doing, as unorthodox as it is, Mr. Emerson likely will be better for BC-although I can't say that I feel good about calling something 'black' ---grey.

ROBBINS Sce Research
No offence intended, or association implied in the way I addressed that comment.
I think Harper has failed his own ethical test by soliciting Emerson's defection. As I've written elsewhere, Harper has maintained that he was interested in practicing a different kind of more ethical and morally centered politics; a kind of politics that he believed in for ideological reasons. I found that, again as I've said before, to be problematic and something that would likely be dangerous given the kind of country that I think the average citizen wants to live in. That is, most Canadians want to live their own lives and make their own moral decisions - they don't want the government to do that for them. Abortion is a good example where I think Mr Harper is out of touch with the average Canadian. I think the average Canadian doesn't much like the idea of abortion but he/she likes even less the idea that abortion would not be available at all or that it would only be available to a certain 'class' of citizens. Most people are able to empathize with someone for whom a difficult and morally challenging situation arises and that's why they're unwilling to judge others' behavior and decisions: The problem with a lot of fundamentalists is that they seem to have an inoperative empathy gene.

Moral absolutists, and there are a great many of them in Mr Harper's party, really want a system where they can force others, with whom they disagree, to live the kind of lives they 'think' are moral. Again it's a question of the perfect trying to destroy the good and the average and the below average. That's why I find Mr Harper's actions this morning, with respect to David Emerson's solicitation, so ironic. I don't think Mr Harper has suddenly changed his mind about how he wants to alter the character of our country, I just think he's decided that the end somehow justifies the means and so therefore it's okay for him to surrender the very principles he told us made him special and worth electing. In the end, given his behavior this morning he's not really very different from Paul Martin - he just wants power and he's convinced himself that he can put his principles in his back pocket until he's got it.

ROBBINS Sce Research
By the way, I don't think you should rationalize what Harper's done given where he started from. It lets him off the hook too easily: As an ordinary politician his behavior is perfectly appropriate, if typically sleazy, political gamesmanship. As someone who swore he'd do politics differently he can't help but think, in his own mind when the lights go off at night, that he's done a shameful thing. I don't think we ought to try and rationalize that, just make note of it and keep in mind that what he's done once he'll undoubtedly do again.

The funny thing is, although I'd never vote for the guy, I always kind of respected him because he seemed to have the courage of his convictions - something I'd pretty much given up finding in a politician.

G West- With due respect to you, I would be more comfortable with a simple straight ahead gloating, which your are certainly due to take, (although I suspect that you perceive gloating to be undignified), than suggesting after the fact that you kind of respected him for his convictions.

Is this really true G West, or is it simply some off-handed attemt at benevolence as you chew mercifully on the kitty?

ROBBINS Sce Research
Why would you doubt me? It is the complete truth, I respect anyone who has the courage of their convictions - even if I don't share them. I think all politicians ought to start paying more attention to their principles. WHat I disliked about MR Harper's campaign this time, as I've been pretty clear about, was that I thought he wasn't being open about his actual feelings and intentions.
His recent actions just reinforced that view. If he believes what he says he believes it is dishonest for him to pretend otherwise and that makes him just another pol, up for sale (like Mr Emerson) to the highest bidder.
I would have thought that was at the centre of everything I've written here. My time is much to valuable to waste on playing silly bugger games with you or anyone else.
Good bye.

ROBBINS Sce Research
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say that I have posted elsewhere (on this site) Stephen Harper's clear policy with respect to MP defections. According to his lights (and while I still think he's on pretty shaky ethical grounds) what he did in phoning Emerson comported more or less perfectly with what he believes about party loyalty...that is, it counts for almost nothing in comparison with an individual's loyalty to 'other' values.

It makes his hissy fit about Belinda's defection look pretty lame but it does explain how the man thinks.

I think, given what he said to the CBC (the source of the quote), that one can't be quite as thoroughgoing in heaping opprobium on the man in this matter.
I think he's deluded and mistaken but, given the way he justifies his policy, his behavior is consistent.

I hope that you appreciate where I'm coming from and that I'm not interested in gloating or scoring points.
Cheers.

G West-I wasn't questioning your fortrightness, I was simply buying time waiting for this to blow over----

I put myself in Harper's shoes. Less than a year ago they are saying he has to go he can never win. He wins based primarily on two things. The Liberals can't win-we couldn't write that script with a straight face. If the Liberals can't win, than who wins? Stephen Harper. But Ontario and Quebec are a little less anti-Ottawa than we are, and they have the most seats. If Harper is supposed to win, to let the country take a fresh step- to clean up government for all to see, than he had to conduct himself a certain way which was not the Reform Alliance way. This he did.

Well the results come on Election Day and it isn't quite what he had hoped for. The Conservative seats plus NDP don't equal the necessary 155, AND PM designate Harper has got nothing in the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

Here is this Conservative pollster in BC (for example), who writes some of the script for an acceptable Conservative campaign with an early bridge into Quebec, who now starts screaming-you have a vacuum in BC, Reynolds is retired-Robbins is the king of hellfire and on and on (using myself as the political metaphor).

Reynolds needs to replace himself and get another suit ready for the Senate race-but can't keep Campbell hanging in the lurch. None of the old guard Liberals will touch the open leadership, and Emerson DID come for Martin. With Martin gone the phones are open callers and Mr. Emerson is just what the doctor ordered. However we have a problem with optics measured against a commitment to be different.

Mr. Harper has a choice. He has been counted out and he knows that the Reform principles before personalities set hasn't and won't make it. He knows that if he takes Emerson he is getting someone with alot of juice, and although I don't condone any of this, Emerson is a really smart mofo. I mean this guy is cooking with serious gas and everybody I mean everybody knows this. You are already making your move with Fourtier so your thumb is already out and you are looking for a ride showing a little leg.

By adding this perfect piece to the puzzle to make it way better than it was just a week before you are asked to take some heat and get a first rate quality political actor (I am suspending any discussion remotely related to ethics for the time being) in Emerson, AND your leverage increases against the NDP whose leverage decreases, and you have to make a choice. Be more succussful or less successful in implementing your policy initiatives which you promised Canadians most of whom are not thinking about David Emerson, AND BC only brought you 17 seats abandoning any interest in you in the lower mainland.

You ask yourself should I be completely principaled or completely political.

It was unethical in my view, but if I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing-likely.

ROBBINS Sce Research
Buying time? Give me a break.

And you questioned my sincerity? I'll post here exactly what you said:

.

I did respect what I thought was Harper's sincere committment to his vision of this country but you can't separate your vision from the need to be ethical and responsible. The end never justifies the means because adopting improper means corrupts the end you're working toward.

Why would I gloat? This is shameful and it's my country too! Every bit as shameful as what Chretien did - just like him, adscam was an eveil means to a good end and look where it got him and the rest of us!
The people who think they have a right to treat this country as their private playground are nothing but opportunists and David Emerson is the head of that group and I think you know that. I think I was right when I suggested to maikeru that one has to be careful about working with the devil. Now I can understand the extreme reaction - I guess it cut too close to the bone!

I am disappointed that Harper is obviously every bit as unprincipled as every other politician in this country with the exception of a few socialists - people like J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis...and of course they never formed a government. He'll certainly never be a role model now unless he can deliver on his other promise which is to turn this country on its head and erase three generations of social progress and cultural diversity. And that'll be nothing to be proud of - except for the hateful slugs who live on that website we were talking about last week.

If he'd do this in the first hours of his 'reign' (and I use that term because of its connotations) I'm convinced he'd do anything to get his way and the almost total silence of his caucus indicates pretty much that there's nobody there who'll stand up to his megalomania.

Even the press hasn't put together the connections somebody as out of the loop as I am has - doesn't that surprise you?

In the end, it's far more soul destroying to abandon your principles than to suffer a hundred defeats.

You disappoint me too if you're willing to look the other way and pretend this doesn't smell to high heaven. Maybe it's time for some real polling!

ROBBINS Sce Research

How do you guys sleep at night? Harper got the mandate he deserved, no more, no less. For people who supposedly agree with the essential values of democracy your rationalizations sound a lot like special pleading. What's really so important in the end: so that you're willing to knowingly manipulate the system to get out of it what you, in your ulitmate wisdom, think the people need? You must be joking!

You ought to be ashamed and so should John Reynolds, Stephen Harper and David Emerson and every damn member of the Conservative party who put their program before the poor naive trusting people of this country. I'm surprised you didn't stay undercover a lot longer! I hope the media gets hold of this and runs with it - it is as bad as anything they accused Jean Chretien of, in fact it's a lot worse.

Sorry my friend they've blown it! What does it matter if you gain the world and lose your soul?