Looks like David Emerson just gave Belinda new life..

The Liberals will rise again, like the stench of rotting seaweed along the shore. Politics in Canada, because it is so removed from the populace, turns politicians at every level, civic (hell, in regional politics the voters are not even allowed to vote!), provincial, and national, corrupt! Politicians are bought and sold like commodities in Canada. Don't believe me? How about mayor Campbell who sold out his electorate & office for a cozy & lucrative Senate seat for his support and vote for the now $2.8 million RAV project.

Sure there are a few brave souls who can rise above the crass corrupt, but they largely remain in the political wilderness.

Casinos are endemic in BC, not for tourists, but to help launder money for the massive drug gro-ops that infest the GVRD!

So who cares about the Liberals, they will rise again and be in power, when the Conservative party turns so corrupt that the electorate will hols their nose and toss them out! No wonder Canada is such an international laughing stock!

David Emerson... OW! That's gotta hurt!

Dear Rafe,
I'm not sure what Emerson's actions say about the Liberals future but the fact he's been welcomed by the Cons does say a lot about the essential fungibility of political ambition doesn't it?

I suppose he'll sell it as a way to respond to the 'needs' of his constituents to have a representative in Cabinet. Means he doesn't have to switch offices either, I guess.

Wonder if anyone will pick up on the fact that it also says something about the opportunism and the phoney morality that Mr Harper's been preaching. Does this really mean that he's trying to fashion a bigger tent coalition and that we're already back to politics as usual? hmmm!

Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!

Why didn't Emerson quit the Liberals before the election and run under the Conservative's banner?

Politics appears to be opportunism when rats jump ship like that!

Maybe their should be an independent candidate movement who share platforms with otrher independents and then if enough elected form a coalition?

This type of poiticking makes me sick and want to vomit (on Emerson's shoes!)!

Ignatieff appears to be just another deep integrationist into the teetering and bankrupt US economy. An ideology strongly supported by the Harperites and a good part of the Liberals. We can only hope the US economy crashes, even if its crash does great damage to Canada and the world, before these crooks can implement their nefarious plans.

I don't know where Rafe gets his idea that the NDP appeals mostly to union leaders? It could appeal to the vast majority if the Party would dare to come up with a strong, pro human and pro Canadian platform.

The problem is that the NDP's backroom leadership is also trying to run on the same spineless policies as the Democracts in the USA.

What does this constantly repeated idiocy of "left and right and centre" mean ? There are no such things. It is all a lie and easily proven hogwash. What were Hitler, Stalin and Mao? How about Attila the Hun, or Christ, or Robespierre? Left, or right? How about Wacky Bennett, when he nationalized the ferries and BC Electric?

This "left and right" baloney is all carefully planned and executed, ruling sector propaganda to divide and pigeonhole people to deprive both the politicians and the public of their capacity to think rationally.

E.G. It is a well and daily proven fact that the neoclassical, globalized market economy theory is a fraud and the biggest crime wave in history, yet it is being taught exclusively in our universities, with Harper a good example of it, and no party or politician dares to raise a voice against its human and environmental destruction.

It is basically the same crap as the Communist Internationale, or Mao's Cultural Revolution, this time hiding under and operating under the guise of so called "free enterprise", meaning "freebooter, pirate economy". The purpose is always the same forced collectivization of the economy under the control of a self appointed ruling class.

The Tories and the Liberals can not afford to open up this can of worms, because they created it.

It would be the NDP's job and duty to bring this mess and crime wave out into the open, but the leadership, both at the provincial and federal levels, is so anxious to climb on the bandwagon of "middle of the road" self destruction, that it will take a major systemic breakdown to start talking about and hopefully, make the necessary changes to save humanity and the Earth.

By the way, I'm a stong private enterpriser, former non union employer and also NDP member. Because, when I drive on a road, I want to feel safe and hope that no armoured trucks can push me off, hurt and kill me in the name of "freedom". I have seen the "freedoms" under the nazi and communist ideologies and can see the same trends now developing under so calkled "free enterprise" capitalism. The same goddamn crooks operating under a different coloured banner.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Emerson's action is par for the course and the ideology he supported all through his term as a Minister, when he kept on saying that Canada needs more and more so called "foreign investment"

In other words, the Tory policy of total sellout.

Canada never needed a penny of foreign investment, neither does any country with resources. Especially now, when banks in certain countries, including in Canada, are "creating" imaginary capital to take over and expropriate the resources, both material and human, of other countries.

Foreign investment has always been a fraud, even under the gold standard days, but now it is a murderous crime wave and people like Emerson fit right into it.

Ed Deak.

Rafe is correct. It's all speculation. One thing is clear. Rafe likes to muse even though he's not an insider. Memories are short. Rafe forgets the egg on his face from the late election. Anyway, Rafe brings joy to the heart of those who hate the liberals.

Yea, I just caught that David Emerson was made a minister, a junior one by the sounds of it. Not terribly happy that they did it, revenge may be part of it, but I don’t think it was worth it from a moral point of view.

Rafe
A long way off topic. Did you know that the “grandpa” from the Munster’s show in the 60’s was a Green party candidate in the US? Apparently at one time he got 50,000 votes, just died and I heard this on a bio of him.

G west

I suppose he'll sell it as a way to respond to the 'needs' of his constituents to have a representative in Cabinet. Means he doesn't have to switch offices either, I guess.

You just gave me my first chuckle of the day, I had a image flash through my head of him saying “jee, I really don’t feel like packing”

Ignatieff is a key participant in the evolution and development of human rights literature. Saying that he supports torture is a slander. He wrote the opposite: that the prohibition is absolute. Oh, but let's not get facts get in the way. The bastard is so evil, he has been throwing away his career by teaching at Harvard.

Good point, Ron. The "Rights Revolution" should be on every Canadian bookshelf. The support for the Iraq war was and remains puzzling though. Any five year old with a rudimentary grasp of human nature and history could have predicted the result. And Ignatieff's manner neeeds tweaking before he can be PM.

Belinda Stronach crosses the floor, becomes cabinet minister. Therefore she must be a harlot or a bimbo.

Mr. Emerson crosses the floor (after being a cabinet minister for the other side), he is a statesman, above politics, interested only in public service. Give me a Break!

So we have refugees from Mike Harris' discredited government in charge of Finance and Health (Walkerton anyone?) and a minister for the environment from Alberta, the province that considers the environment a cash cow and health and clean air inconveniences that get in the way of profit.

Oh yeah, and we have a minister of public works that wasn't even elected. I guess that could be considered a good step towards privatization. It has a good ring, the minister of public works isn't even a member of government. But this is only logical, as the Republicans double A affiliate team in Canada really doesn't believe in government anyway, and with a majority would probably try to get it small enough to drown in a bathtub.

I must say though, I feel safe knowing that Doris (I mean Stockwell) Day is in charge of public safety. Maybe this summer he can rescue me with his jet-ski if I get into trouble with my kayak.

Mr. Harper was quite successful in hiding and silencing the right-wing fundie whackos that constitute so much of his base during the election. I doubt that he will be able to keep them out of sight and silenced permanently as he will need their votes in the house.

I for one find it refreshing that there is no clear successor to the Liberal leadership. I agree also with the poster above who compared Ignatieff to Chalabi. It's bad enough that elections in the U.S. are limited to one Ivy Leaguer or the other. Hopefully the new leader of the Liberal Party will be a Canadian, not a person who has spent most of their life in the US or an American wannabe like so many of the Alliance/(nonProgressive)Conservative types. There is nothing like a new leader from nowhere, and not pre-ordained to rejuvenate a party. It is time for a new Trudeaumania by a different name and Mr. Harper can play Dief the Chief while the Liberals clean house and prepare for the next election that will most likely create a real majority government.

Mr. Mair, do you not think it a little unwise to draw comparisons between the Liberal Party of Canada and that of the United Kingdom. The LPC has not just governed through one of the bloodiest most destructive conflicts in human history, as the Liberals in the UK had. The LPC has just presided over a relatively prosperous time for the country. They fought down a crippling deficit, have paid down the debt, established Canada on a stable economic footing, while at the same time avoided becoming embroiled in an immoral war in Iraq.

The LPC was only 6% behind the Conservatives on January 23rd. That margin could be easily made up, or it could easily widen a few points, but either way the Liberals are not likely to see their support slip below 25%, which is a sizeable support base.

I think that a positive spin can be put on all the so-called "A-List" candidates bowing out early. The "A-Listers" all came with political baggage from the past twelve years of Liberal government. A fresh new face is what the party needs to overcome divisions in the party, and to show the electorate that the people if not responsible for, but at least around for, the Sponsorship Scandal are no longer running the party.

I think the Liberals are primed to heal old wounds, to end the old Martin-Chretien split, and to put a new face on their party. The Liberals were only narrowly defeated this time around. Harper will have to actually produce some results, rather than simply avoid messing up, if he wishes to push the Conservatives into majority territory.

Fiat Lux:
You are correct with detail and color to boot! The rest of us should be paying attention to what this man is saying. There really isn't much more to add, except that in the coming days, we'll know alot more about the Cons then we do about the Libs.

Micheal Igeateff is an unknown to most. Unless there are people here who have read his books and actually are in the know enough to cast judgement on whether or not this man has gotten the answers right in terms of human rights and finance, I doubt that this thread will offer much concerning Mike. Even if Micheal gets the answers right, there are no guarantee's that he or his party will follow them. But, as they say, the Liberals aren't the problem at the moment. Its the Conservative agenda.

The Conservative "agenda" is well known, if anyone cares to look. Those new to the National Citizens Coalition should be reminded that Stephen Harper was the president of the NCC for five years, from late 1997 to dec. of 2001. His support to the NCC, along with the NCC's report for Harper since the 80's is well known, again to anyone who cares to look.

http://www.morefreedom.org/
Campaigns says it all.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n27ja03a.htm
The links in this one are definitely worth looking into.

http://www.answers.com/topic/national-citizens-coalition
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/15/ncc031015

This last one is my favorite. It gives a comprehensive history of what the NCC has done in Canadian Federal politics since 67.

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

All anyone needs to do is cut and paste, and surf away to see just how bought and paid for, this U.S. empirical puppet plant Harper really is. The reality that Stephen Harper is our current P.M. doesn't shine well on the intellegence of the average Canadian.

Stockwell Day is Minister of Public Safety ... and I laughed and laughed until [gasp!!] I realized that this links him up with U.S. "Homeland Security", the Patriot Act, and ... oh my Gawd!

BTW, Rafe, the big problem with the Liberal Party has been Paul Martin. Whatever drove him to fight such a vicious civil war against the Liberal Leader who he wanted to replace ... is the same "whatever" which drove him to employ many questionable tactics to accomplish his personal goal.

IMO, Paul Martin corrupted the party. We'll know more soon. Once the whole sorry mess is exposed, it can be cleaned up. I think the Liberal Party can repair and rejuvenate. I'm hoping for Ken Dryden.

As for Stockwell Day ... watch for his Code Orange announcements (He is pissed off re lack of respect) followed by Code Red (You aren't listening to me, are you?) and Code Purple (I'm gonna ask God to break your fingers!). Code Black is the one to hope for (SD in apoplectic tailspin).

Integrity in Government? I thought I heard Harper say that the Liberals were a bunch of crooks. I suppose that they are only crooks when they work for the other side. I guess we should be happy knowing that Emerson will be paying back the Liberal Party all the funds they coughed up to help him get elected. The Three Daughters of Darkness are finished with Harper. Clotho has spun the thread (Harper is a moderate interested in changing the old boy's network). Lachesis has held the thread in place (Harper's crew was surprizingly silent during the campaign) And Atropos has effectivly cut the string and set fate along it's way.

With regards to Mr. Emerson and his sudden conversion and appointment to Cabinet. Having met the gentleman in question not to long ago, I must express my surprise and disappointment in his decision.

There is a big difference between his crossing over and that of Belinda Stronach. Belinda at least had the courtesy to wait 11 months to determine if she could continue to support the Conservative caucus. In the case of Mr. Emerson, the ink has been barely dry on the voters ballots.

In this instance, Mr. Emerson who is remaining quiet owes the voters an explanation, owes the Liberal Party and members for the cost of the election and should ethically and morally resign his seat. He was elected as a Liberal not a Conservative.

I hope that Mr. Harper understands that he will have to keep Minister Emerson out of the House for most of this term, as quite frankly, he will likely be hounded out of the House. In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, his political career and likely his business career are pretty much over. You have to be able to trust the people you elect or work with to some degree and certainly he has broken that trust in so many ways.

But I do have to wonder though if perhaps the pressure to cross over came from the Campbell government. If that can be proven, then the provincial government is likely to be in deep disarray with a clear ideological split coming similar to that experienced by the Socreds. For myself, I will be writing the "new" minister to express my deep disappointment.

emerson to the conservatives. gotta love it. decisive majority next time. neo-cons for at least six years in ottawa and seven in b.c.. my but life is good here in canada.

Actually, I think Rafe only gets the surface indiciations of the underlying disease right in this piece.

Martin's rise to power within the Liberals, and the way in which it was done, by manipulation, rigged internal democratic processes and driving out the more or less heretofore true "liberal" element of the party, was the first obvious indicator of the new philophical divide and bent currently working its way throughout the socio-economic system of capitalism everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. (Martin was the initial thin edge of the wedge of neoconservatism, driven into the ranks of the traditional ruling party of Capitalism in this country. He was/is but the early warning sign of what is yet to come.)

The ruling class "philosphical/ideological view" within the system has shifted sharply, with the collapse of "so-called" Communism, and the ever more obvious failure of organized "Labour" and the like failure, disintegration into apathy of the working class generally, has all but oblitered all its potential and/or perceived enemies. Capitalism has thus emerged triumphant everywhere, and its ruling class sees no real need to continue tolerating the drift begun post-WW2 towards a kind of "socialized capitalism". Indeed, it has decided to reverse all of those kinds of "socialized" gains made during this previous period.

It is to be "socialism/welfarism" for the great corporations and "laissez faire capitalism" for the working masses of society. From here on in, the State is to look after the ruling class interest as its prime directive.

There are signs emerging even here, within and about the Liberal Party, that the same neo-conservative kind of political element and ideas set which overwhelmed the old "Progressive Conservative" Party are now lining up their sights to perform a similar gutting of what has to here been the main party of relatively "progressive" socialized capitalism in this country also, being The Liberals. (Indeed, we may still see, as I've been warning about for a long time here, the effective "ingestion" of the Liberals into a new kind of BC style Liberal-Conservative alliance at the Federal level, around a like neo-conservative ideological base and programme set. Though it may still take some time yet, over a drawn out, lingering death watch period , given the reluctance to let go of the dearly departed sentimentality within some Axeworthy kind of elements of the Liberals. (Think Tyabji and Gordon Wilson.)

But what is apparent, in the "New, actually Old Capitalism", the nature of the "democratic competition" between the parties is intended to be "right" directed, towards "less for the masses and tax breaks and riches for the rulers", to join the "race towards the bottom" typical now for the masses throughout capitalism.)

The overarching reality throughout capitalism, arising out of its very ruling class core, is that an ever more extreme right wing, fascist drifting neoconservatism is rising ascendant everywhere.

Continued next post...

From previous post...

Which raises the hope, no doubt, that has for a very long time been there within the NDP, to eventually, by skill of maneuvering, simple opportunism and adroit programme and philosophical compromise, and plain old sucking up to the rulers of "the system", to supplant, be seen as the alternative to the Liberal Party.

Except I don't think it will happen. Not within the framework set of opportunities within current and emerging neoconservative capitalism. For what made the old "socialized capitalism" advocated by the Liberal Party work, and be accepted, even by the ruling class, was that it was rooted in the prevailing post war fears of "Communism" and "a militant working class" which then prevailed amongst that ruling class. Such that it was encouraged to get on board the Survival Train Express of this "socialized capitalism", in the hopes, as it successfully did, of allowing the system to out-survive its twin enemies; Socialism/Communism and Labour solidarity and militancy.

That is not the situation currently. Indeed the battlefield of society is littered with the enemies of capitalism, certainly in the advanced capitalist states. It is in a triumphalist mood, and has no need, in its own read of the situation, to further tolerate even the limited kind of "human face to capitalism" the NDP would hope, and the word is "hope", to achieve.

Rather through the accelerating rightward drifting Liberals or tne already Neocon Conservatives, OR even more preferably perhaps, a "cumming together" :-) of the two in a Grand Alliance, they are more likely to seek to "crush" the NDP entirely. Certainly, the NDPs prospects of getting the ruling class cash necessary, historically and realistically, to actually win elections within "Money-Democracy Capitalism, is not very bloody likely. The imperative that might otherwise drive the ruling class to do that, as it did in the post war for the Liberals, is simply not there.

We are already in the New World Order. Get used to it. Or respond accordingly by building the social movements and climate that will turn back the tide, or even more preferably, crush it.

Swearing in day and harper's ALREADY broken two promises!!!
Emerson when did you make this decision?
Before the election after secret meetings perhaps?
Typical. I think conservative mp's deserve a big pay raise!

Prime Minister - Stephen Harper.

He's as corporate and U.S. bought as it gets.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform - Robert Nicholson.

He's a lawyer from the Mulroney era, voting for all of those wonderful Mulroney policies from 84 and 88 terms, with a similar previous historical background.

Leader of the Government in the Senate - Marjory LeBreton.

Minister of Finance - James Flaherty.

This is my personal laugh of the day. A lot of Ontarioans will be pissed at Harper for this one. This guy makes the finance affairs of the Grant Divine Conservatives look good. Just another lawyer anyone decent who knows him, doesn't like.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency - Peter MacKay.

Who else?

Minister of Justice; Attorney General of Canada - Vic Toews.

A lawyer, albeit, one that specialized in constitutional affairs. He held a similar position as an MLA for Manitoba. This guy brings me back to the days of the reform, the days of the NCC.

Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics - David Emerson.

How much money do you think Dave is gonna steal from this one?

President of Treasury Board - John Baird.

Another Poli Sci!! Who, boy... here we go again. He was Ontario co-chair for Stephen Harper's leadership campaign. Served as co-chair of Jim Flaherty's Ontario PC leadership campaign. Another patronage appointment, and aforementioned gopher.

Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario - Tony Clement.

Pick the biggest dummie of the bunch to run Health. Smart.

Minister of Defence - Gordon O'Connor.

Who?

Minister of Public Safety - Stockwell Day.

Of course!

Minister of Veterans Affairs - Gregory Thompson.

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board - Chuck Strahl.

Get a logger in there to cut the wheat board down.

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - Loyola Hearn.

He's a Newfoundland teacher who served as an MLA a couple times... seems ok.

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians - Jim Prentice.

Yup! Ripping up the Kelowna agreement won't be easy. Thats why they need a Calgary lawyer who has a background as a Commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission of Canada for 10 years.

Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - Lawrence Cannon.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - Monte Solberg.

Anyone who follows this racist's blogs from Medicine Hat should know where this is going to lead.

Minister of Environment - Rona Ambrose.

I wonder if she knows anything about the environment... she's 36 and has a degree in poli sci!!

Minister of Natural Resources - Gary Lunn.

The files are thick on bone cracking Gary. Yes, Stephen, just pick a guy who knows absolutely nothing about this portfolio.

Cont.

President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport - Michael Chong.

Say hellow to our new hero for provincial transfers!!! He's a 34 year old poli sci!! And, he has a sports background as recent chief information officer for the National Hockey League Player's Association. This should make him a wonderful candidate for two ministerial roles, don't yah think?

Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec - Jean-Pierre Blackburn.

Considering who Harper has to choose from, this is, I must admit, a natural fit, but again, this is a two ministry portfolio. Blackburn suits only the latter.

Minister of Public Works and Government Services - Michael Fortier.

Nice patronage appointment. This slimball isn't even elected.

Minister of Industry - Maxime Bernier.

A corporate lawyer from Quebec. Another conflict of interest brewing away.

Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification - Carol Skelton.

Don't you just love sticking two Ministries together to save money? I'm sure it'll be so efficient.

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development - Diane Finley.

Isn't she an NCC award winner? She is! Twice!!! Another buyout NCC plant.

Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women - Bev Oda.

At least they put a woman in there.

Minister of International Co-operation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages - Josée Verner.

She was one of several names mentioned by Harper to be elected during the debates. Her patronage to the party runs to political influence in universities and media.

All in all, I'm not impressed. All any government has to do to pave the way to corporate and U.S. takeover, is weaken federal powers and the economy. At this rate...

I'm already looking forward to another election. This Con government isn't fit.

The brain:

Did you hear Harper's statement on his new 'liberal' cabinet member? Apparently he (Harper) solicited Emerson and not the other way around - he wouldn't actually answer any of the more difficult questions. Certainly didn't take long for these turkeys to start to smell. I agree with most of your assessments of the new Cabinet, btw. Must be great to be an old-time Reformer now eh!

Ohh, I'd say that is a fairly good conclusion ...especially since Emerson will now be responsible for the sacred 2010 Olympics.

I don't know about that ideological split in the BC Liberals though... I don't think there are any real Liberals left in the BC Liberal party anymore. That has always been the intended plan. It's been a guise for years now under Campbell. The MLA's?....slightly varying shades of neo-conservatism attire that's all...Members of the Lemming Authority...blindly following Commander Campbell over the slippery slopes of suicidal privatization.

My feeling is that those who who chose to remain in the BC Liberal Party as Carole Taylor et al did, especially after Campbell's disastrous policies that dismantled so much of BC's social infrastructure, have revealed oh-so-clearly who they really are and what they really stand for. Just the adoption of a more chic and comforting...and more Liberal self-image, that's all... but definitely conveniently delusionary on their part... as they cut and bleed this province dry.

Correction: I got Dianne Finley confused with Dianne Francis (journalist for the National Post), concerning awards given by the NCC to various public figures. Below is a cutout from nupge.ca links:

"The Toronto Sun (which has a lot in common with the NCC, operating much the same way) unwittingly caught the spirit of the moment by reporting Friday that Harper had "joined an elite group" in accepting the medal at an NCC banquet.

The paper was dead on about that: previous recipients of its pompous "freedom medal" include Conrad Black, Peter Worthington, Ted Byfield, David Somerville, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, John Crosbie, Thomas Bata, Michael Walker and Diane Francis.

The NCC has led campaigns, in the name of freedom, against limits on third-party advertising during election campaigns. This from the same group of corporations that spent an estimated $19-million (more than all political parties combined were legally allowed to spend) during the 1988 federal election in support of the free trade deal advocated by Mulroney’s Conservatives and the free trade agenda that has since killed the Autopact and has farmers and workers in the forestry sector on the ropes today.

They have backed campaigns by big grain companies to kill the Canadian Wheat Board and trumpeted their opposition to having to do business in French in the province of Quebec. They have attacked labour with union-busting campaigns and calls to muzzle the democratically elected representatives of working people with claims they have a 'radical political agenda'."

They were there with strong opposition to the NEP in the 70's, and today, we are over 80% U.S. owned in oil and forestry. Its high time people started putting two and two together on just how corrupt Stephen Harper really is.

Yup.

It's early days yet, but the shape of things to come is there and gathering momentum. And it really is the fate of the nation and its citizen mass that is the chip pot these high stakes players are gambling with and on. Only the players in the game thus far, with no serious challengers in sight, are those with the largest cash pool of chips in reserve, and failing that, they own the House as well. (Wellll, at least it's their names on the "formal" papers of deed to the House. And seems to work, only if one ignores the major mortgage holder in the background.)

G West:
Its just a taste of what's to come. Wait until we get a first look at the proposed bills coming up, that is if the first one passes...
At this point, the intel of the NCC takes a boost, but that's about all. Nothing has changed, except for their fine tuning of strategy. As for Liberal party weakness, they are weak at the moment. They need a new elected leader, more clarity on where they will be headed, they need better candidates to run in the next election as they all do, more clarity on their finances, more clarity on their issues and platforms and they will get it, and then some, with the focus on their leadership convention.

But what the real story is at the moment is the Conservative honeymoon which will either last in all of the bought out media to their end, or end with the hypcracy to come with the media that still prints and reports the truth. We've got a taste of Harpers hypocracy today with David Emerson "being asked" to defect by Harper, and Harper's appointment of an appointed senator to cabinet.

It is to be "socialism/welfarism" for the great corporations and "laissez faire capitalism" for the working masses of society. From here on in, the State is to look after the ruling class interest as its prime directive, wrote Coyote.

An excellent piece of analysis. We have a very dangerous political climate in ascendance...the poles reversing in more ways than one.

And here's something else to consider. The Cons now have 125 seats, the NDP 29, and Andre "King" Arthur, to give them that magical number of 155. In fact, they can use the governor general to break ties, without Andre's support, but... the big question remains. Does the NDP want to commit electorial suicide?

If there is much of anything the Cons and NDP can agree on, I'd be surprised, and moreso, there would be a smelled betrayal of the NDP against unions if Jack remotely considered an alliance with the Cons. Considering that the NCC led Cons want to do away with public healthcare, and considering that the NDP's number one message is to keep it, I don't see how the NDP could ally with the Cons and not risk losing over half of their seats and at the same time risk a majority government scenerio by either the Cons or Libs.

The thing that voters must understand with the Conservatives, is the timelines of their agenda. As Lynn points out, they are waiting for just one majority to ruin this country. That's all it will take for them to fulfill everything in the links I've provided concerning what Coyote has aptly described as the organization of corportate lobbyists who hold the mortgage on the Con title of power.

Harper is nothing more than a figurehead for now, but if he's ever granted real power, this puppet's master will fundamentally change this country in ways that will leave some of us selling our real estate and looking for citizenship somewhere else, and likely for good reason. Its hard to love a country that votes to destroy itself.

Every M.P. is supposed to be addresses as the Honourable _________ ___________.

How can anyone address David Emerson as "Honourable"???????

I would describe him as having no integrity, no honour and an electoral THIEF!!!!!!!!!!1

Well written Rafe.

Looking into a past performace is hard to compare directly, history does not repeat itself; but it does rhyme.

The instrument of parliamentary democracy is played very much the same way in Canada as in the UK. Our outcome will be yet seen but the collapse of the Liberal Party of Canada is not out of the question.

As much as the continuation of the experiment of 'Canada' is not out of the question...

RE: The Brain (17 minutes ago)
Couldn't agree with you more, as my numerous posts to another place on this site (Rafe's column of last week) will attest. NDP alliance with Cons would be a total disaster. IMO Jack should be looking to find a way to make common cause with enough left-wing liberals to create a real opposition to the Cons and neoliberals like Emerson (I don't think he'll be the last defection) rather than thinking, even for a moment, of any kind of cooperation with Harper...which would definitely be the kiss of death for the NDP. Agree this is a critical time for progressives - I can't imagine Harper will be bringing in PR anytime soon. THat would have been the better way to increase the left's influence and try to advance the cause of opposition to elite right-wing rule in this country. I'm afraid it's out of the question now since Harper and his minions are going to be a lot harder to defeat than Mulroney was.
Cheers

Every M.P. is supposed to be addressed as the Honourable _________ ___________.

How can anyone address David Emerson as "Honourable"???????

I would describe him as having no integrity, no honour and an electoral THIEF!!!!!!!!!

Does not say much for Liberal "STAR" Candidates does it?

Does not say much for Conservative values either!

What say you

I say that the voters of Emerson's riding get to decide whether they want Emerson representing them as a Conservative candidate. He doesn't have mandidate of those who put their trust in him - and I would bet Ian Waddell would have given Emerson the Conservative a better run for his money (pardon the pun) than Emerson the Liberal (read: strategic vote to keep Conservatives from gaining the balance of power in Canada). The Conservatives were blocked out from the major urban centres for a reason - they don't represent the diverse constituents of socially conscious Canadians who realize that sustainability on all fronts (be it social, economical, or environmental) is of the utmost import at this time, and the Conservatives can't (by virtue of their ideology) deliver on these fronts. Emerson needs to be petitioned out of his riding, he has proven himself a fraud - but he has confirmed himself a good businessman as evidenced by his opportunism.

Well folks, it's day one of the Harper experience . I wonder how many people have already decided that after voting for that character to punish the Liberals for fast practices, that they may have been hasty. The idea of a Liberal member jumping across the floor for the goodies was never considered by many. Ed Broadbent, now retired tried to get some accountablity in government members, he figured if you want to cross, well resign and lets have a byelection. If my memory serves me, Shiela Copps did just that. And got re-elected, only to be blindsided by the martin team.

How is it that when Stronich crossed the floor she was branded a whore and other awful names.
So what is Emerson? And how many other hacks from the lIberal party might do the same.

And politicians wonder why they are hated by so many folks? maybe because of the sleeze factor

Stockwell Day is Minister of Public Safety.

That's great, it proves Canadians get irony.

Anyhoo, brain and GW, the NDP and Cons can make common cause on electoral and parliamentary reform.

Doing so will not hurt the NDP. They'll be able to say, Cons or Libs, we can work with either if its for the good of the country.

And electoral reform would do wonders for future NDP seat counts.

The vitriolic words coming from so many about the MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT that they elected?

Time for a little reminder about our democracy.

You vote for a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, not a party, not a party leader, a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

That MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT is free to vote, act, etc however he or she thinks is best for thier constituents.

Just because 98% of the other MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT spend all their time looking out for their own interests, by making damn sure they get re-elected (for 6 years and have their gold-plated pensions) does not mean that all MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT must do so.

It is the ones that tow the party line are good little toadies that we, the electorate, should toss out on their ears. Time after time we do not, curious that?

So stop the mass anger etc about the crossing of the floor (unless you are a voter in Vancouver-Kingsway - and I say to you that if you are really unhappy about this VOTE INDEPENDANT for all time in the future), as in the end we only vote for a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT and for that I am happy as otherwise we would have the same system as was sooo well run in the Soviet Union of 1919-1989...

I don't know where Rafe gets his idea that the NDP appeals mostly to union leaders? It could appeal to the vast majority if the Party would dare to come up with a strong, pro human and pro Canadian platform. [I]

*** that's precisely what I said!"

Re British Liberals being torn asunder by WWI ... that;s not really what happened. LLG represented the left wing of the party, Asquith the right.That LLG used what he saw as an inadequate war effort by Asquith to mount his coup is true but the split was there in the Party war or no war.

Moreover, the first post War election was fought with the coalition still together. It wasn't until 1922, when the Tories left, that the Liberals could show that the rift was healed but is wasn't, and hasn't healed yet.

The piece was, as stated, pure speculation but I was struck by the similarities between two parties of the centre trying to stay together

Hey Murdock!

Why didn't Emerson run as an independent then during the last election, or better yet as a Conservative????????????????????????????????

As far as I am concerned Emerson is a political fraud and he stole votes!

Rafarino: What precisely did you say when you said the following:

Bluththaaa ... say what??

Michael Fortier, an UNELECTED party operative, was appointed to cabinet! I did not know that it was legal to just give cabinet posts to your friends even if they aren’t elected to the House of Commons. I thought it was just patronage appointments like director of the Mint, citizenship judges, and the Senate, which were reserved for unelected political party insiders and friends. Can Harper appoint other unelected people to the senate and get them to be his cabinet ministers too because I think there are a few more openings available in the senate? Is he thus limited by the number of available senate seats to the number of friends he can theoretically appoint to cabinet?

What about the unelected party operatives that post blogs on the Tyee’s web site, were they also eligible for cabinet posts?

Avicenna
Sorry, petitioning is a BC Provincial wrinkle - won't work at the Federal level!

ranbir asked:

BC Mary: Agreed.
Murdock: Do you really condone Emersons behavior before the election demonizing the Cons, only to join them 2 weeks later? Sure, the arguement can be made that Emerson is doing what's best for his constituents... and the arguement can also be made that his constituents voted for him under very false pretenses. I hardly believe for a moment that his riding wished for this in the slightest, and it would do you well to look at just how close the votes were with the other two parties, particularly the Cons. This riding, regardless of who was running for the Conservatives, be it Emerson or anyone else, was likely going lose, so while you are correct in telling it like it is in terms of reminding the voters just who it is that you vote for, you are incorrect in telling the voters that they had it coming in not smelling a rat. The bottom line is, the lies of David Emerson just committed political suicide in his riding. He might get elected in Alberta. They like self interested politicians there.

You all know it:

Its just the beginning of the Cons true hypocracy. Harper has suggested reconviening in April where they plan to introduce their accountability act, and if it passes, which it won't, its daycare in July meaning the Liberals could be forced into an election by July and likely Oct or Nov at the latest.

The big question under this scenerio is, can the Liberals... can they get it together with such a short timeframe? They haven't got the time to scheme and get nasty over crowns. The Lib party has to heal, and heal fast. They had better start looking at leadership electability in the eyes of the national consensus first, and think like Brutus second. To that end, I'm with BC Mary, thinking wishfully for Ken Dryden to come in for the save, if he's got it in him to run as leader.

I'm definitely sure that this country doesn't want another election this close, as this means potentially voting for a leaderless party over a second look at Harpers ways.

I'm not sure, Avenncia, if Emersons riding has the time to circulate a petition, but if I was living there, I'd spend a couple days of footwork looking for signatures, no problem. This riding definitely saw the Cons come in second. This is not a Conservative riding, and I have no doubt that its no longer a David Emerson riding, either.

Even Canwest feels snubbed, because they thought Harper should put in 20 cabinet ministers from Alta, or something nutty, sniping about the absence of a ministry of energy. If this isn't a look on how biased and self interested Canwest truly is... a quick call from Harper explaining that this is precisely what he'll do with a Harper majority should calm the fears of that nut bar media for their nut bar God.

Well, G West, any way we can claim our confidence back? Lost and found? I'll bite.

Did I say Emersons riding saw the Cons come in second? I think it was third.

uhh, murdock...since this Parliament has not even been in session yet, on what grand principle did Emerson actually cross the floor on? Enlighten us please.

Or is he simply a corporate mercenary for a new kind of war about to be waged on Canada ?

As I wrote in my column before the elections, a Harper minority could be very dangerous. He will now act sweet as honey, bring on some motherhood legislations nobody can oppose, hoping to fool people to give him a landslide the next time.

The only party that can afford an early election are the Cons. Big business has now smelled blood and will move in for the kill, deserting the Liberals and pumping unlimited funds and propaganda into Harper's campaign for majority.

While cash donations can be visible and accountable, the propaganda barrage by the controlled media is beyond control and accountability from any angle, worth far more that millions in donations.

I wasn't familiar with Emerson's background, but if he was the head of Canfor, they must have been supporting the Fraser Inst. also NCC and definitely Tom d'Aquino's outfit of chief executives.

Which is, most likely, why he was contacted and bought by Harper. He already had the background
to become a red hot Tory, which he was all the time. Like John Manley, masquerading as Liberals.

Ed Deak.

Same goes for Fortier - he and John Reynolds were co-chairs of Harper's campaign and Fortier is literally the world of finance personified. He has run twice for the Conservatives, lost both times, coming in last on one of the runs...so you can see he is definitely not the peoples' choice...but as Fiat Lux says above about Emerson.... having the right background , which means having the right corporate stuff, to play on Harper's team is paramount to all other considerations...and trumps democracy itself.

Lynn, Ed. brain, we've been Conned. David Emerson graduated from the University of Alberta and spent time as Deputy Minister of Finance for B.C. Google this guy. Calling him the CEO of Canfor is like thinking Stockwell Day is the Chief Executive Officer of the Sea-doo Corporation. We shoulda seen this coming.

Back on that wondrous April Fool's Day 2004, we shoulda seen this coming when Paul Martin sprang his shock-and-awe press conference in Vancouver to take our minds off the possibility that Justice Dohm would actually open the Search Warrants on the Basi and Virk case. Uncannily, Paul seemed to know he was in the clear on that point.

So he pulled 3 rabbits out of his hat, announcing his personal choices for Liberal candidates in Vancouver: Dosanjh, Chan, and David Emerson. We shoulda seen this coming.

And when they say that Emerson crossed on orders from Gordon Campbell, maybe we shoulda seen that coming too.

Thanks, Rafe, for the history and context of the British system.

Your views on the Liberals seem to be a complete contradiction. You say that the Liberals must find a "leader who can put the Chretien-Martin schism behind the party and regain public confidence." But you call all the old white men who represent that era "A list candidates."

I'll take the B list any day.

Rafe:

I think your comparison between the post WWI Liberals in Britain and the possible outcome of the mess the Canadian Liberals find themselves in is insightful. Not surprised you'd find it difficult to get someone to agree with you since there aren't many people blogging who'd know David Lloyd George from a hole in the ground. But I think it was the lead up to the Depression and the economic problems that succeeded the war and the rise of labour politics which actually killed the British Liberal party as much as it was dissention between Lloyd George and Asquith.

Further, you may have overlooked the role of the Labour Liberal alliance (Labour won 29 seats in 1906 and, for the most part supported the Liberals during the 1905-1914 period). Unemployment and economic problems after the war provided the spark that Labour needed to suck up progressive voters from the Liberals and you can't dismiss how effective Ramsay MacDonald was as Labour leader nor the eventual effects of the 1926 General Strike.
Although the Liberals got less than 20% of the votes in the election of 1924 that brought Baldwin to power they had managed to hang on, in a way, by supporting the short-lived Macdonald government that was elected in December 1923 - I think it lasted 10 months didn't it? It may be that the Labour alliance did the Liberals in more than party infighting did, after all.

In Canada during WWII the Liberals found the CCF within striking distance (according to many estimates) of forming a government until Mackenzie King adopted enough of their progressive policies to finesse them successfully. I think Harper may be, especially given his wonderfully cynical performance today, a kind of political reincarnation of Mackenzie King. His enigmatic smile is worthy of the Mona Lisa, isn't it?

Is it possible for the same thing to happen here (to the Liberals)?

I think Harper is set for the near future. He'll shovel out goodies to the provinces and once those tax points are gone no one will get them back - we're going to be looking at a different kind of country with a smaller and less powerful federal government. If the Libs are smart they'd make electoral reform a big issue because that's one way they're going to have a chance in the next election...maybe they could make a deal with Harper to keep him in power in turn for some real change in the way we elect parliaments.

As long as the Bloc draws 45 or more seats in Ottawa the Liberals are in real trouble because they haven't got anything like national unity to use as their trump card anymore and they can’t claim to speak for the province either. Quebec usually finds a way to turn most political situations to its advantage so we're not going to hear much about national unity for a while, in my opinion. Quebec will suck up the tax points with a big juicy smile on its face, just like all the other provinces!

It will be interesting. Although the NDP is in a weak position (as you've noted) it may be possible for them to gain from the possible disintegration of the Liberals. Haven't quite figured out how yet.
I think Ignatieff may be the guy to provide the philosophical and intellectual leadership the Liberals need to remake themselves but I don't think he has the necessary charisma, do you?

The Liberals do have one other possibility that occured to me and it's a long shot. I have a feeling that the Harper government doesn't get much support from women (especially those who are under 50 years old) so it may be possible for the Liberals to revive their electoral fortunes if they can find the right distaff candidate to lead the charge - what do you think?

Avicenna

Nope, sorry. That's representative democracy. Unless he's convicted of an indictable offence I think he's there for the duration.

And no, stealing your confidence is not an indictable offence.

The brain

In order for the Liberals to heal they require a good Doctor, who could be better to heal the Liberals than Dr.Hedy Fry,who has stated she may run for the Liberal leader ship. What more could the Liberals possibly ask for? (Dam,I sure hope those burning crosses in Prince George are extinguished.)

I think picking an unelected campaign chair crony from Quebec as Minister of Public Works is a stroke of genius. He already knows who the campaign contributors were and he will be able to dole out the patronage without the middlemen that got the Liberals in trouble in the Gomery "affair".

Ed, Mary, G West, you speak it true:
Emerson's defection is tied up in his cabinet position. There's billions at stake for certain people, and the Gateway and olympics has federal sponsorship written all over it. We can follow the paper trail, but by then, its too late. Thing is, something smells real bad. If the Libs would have formed a majority, Emerson wouldn't have left. It is indeed, all about the money. Power is secondary with his move here, as we all know, with business, money is power and this guy is right in the middle of it. Is he out to broker deals with side commissions? Kick backs? Shares? Only a fool would think its otherwise.

How quickly they come out with the taste of power. Flaherty is another bad apple among bad apples. Toronto is cringing at the prospects of this former Harris finance minister running the countries numbers, and so should we. One things for certain in the next election. The bloc, Libs, NDP and Greens will finally be on the same page as to who the real enemy of this country really is. Finally.

woody: :-)

While cash donations can be visible and accountable, the propaganda barrage by the controlled media is beyond control and accountability from any angle, worth far more than millions in donations." Fait Lux

Indeed. With the Neocon Conservatives finally "relatively" safely ensconced in power, so long as they do not make any major tactical mistakes, to which their natural arrogance is prone-, behave too, too right wing, between now and the next election, this will further encourage the further abandonment of the Liberals by even the relatively more nervous Nellie ruling class elements. The mainstream of the ruling class has, afterall, been more or less joined at the hip and wallet with the Libs for a long time, and generally it has served them well throughout the post WW2 Prosperity Time until now.(And even some of them are subject to weaknesses of sentiment, as are we, say to the NDP for example.)

The indications are however, as Fait Lux and I seem to agree, that this is all about to change, and it is likely to do so more or less in the manner he describes. In Money Democracy Capitalism, it's those with the greater amounts of media assets to bring to the social class scale, and /or cash largesse to spread around to political aspirants, who really decide at least near all democratic, including election prospects and outcomes. (Though, and this is important, particular social "upheaval" situations and times in which there are also large and militant "social movements" of people in play, challenging capitalist power and control, can, have and do secure a counteracting power and ability to short circuit and cut through this normal "capitalist democracy" situation. Indeed, it can be decisive when considering how people and movements should respond to this societal slide into neoconservativism, and drifts towards fascism.

Additionally, if "social democracy", as manifest in the NDP or even The Greens, seriously want to survive this period we are entered upon, but especially if they desire to play pivotal roles in deciding its final outcomes, presumably in the "people and nation's interest", then it's very important they grasp this fundamental point about the role of large scale and militant social movements in shaping the character and outcomes of a time. They are unlikely to secure, even presuming some eventual PR electoral system, ruling clash cash and media editorial and coverage policy charity. Which means, unless they have independant means of printing a limitless cash supply, like the big banks, you need to be positioned quite differently politically, in relation to your attitudes and actions to the building of large and militant mass movements, than what you have been and currently are.

In the coming period, in my view, it is unlikely that opposition political parties are, certainly over the short haul, going to have much opportunity to decide real or significant outcomes, let alone any serious opportunity to come to even nominal or "formal" political power. This all much more depends, in all likelihood, on what ordinary folks, and I mean very large and militant numbers of them, do or do not do. (And right now at least, there is little grounds for optimism on this score either.)

freebear writes:

Why didn't Emerson run as an independent then during the last election, or better yet as a Conservative????????????????????????????????

As far as I am concerned Emerson is a political fraud and he stole votes!

incorrect, for you it would appear he stole a vote, yours.

Once again I stress that we, in our democracy, vote for a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, not a party and not a party leader. This is not a Stalinist Communist country, so stop with the fraud stuff. Whatever monies he may have used from the LiEberal party coffers are justifiably taken back into the Con party ones for the losses of Stronach.

In the end it is the integrity of the individual elected that you are railing against, and that has some merit.

If you feel that your vote was stolen by a fraud, do not vote for any of the 'party' faithful ever again and assist others in understanding that and INDEPENDANT MP is the only way to get any sort of true voice. Some voters in PQ have figured this out, every now and then some other ridings also see the merits in a good candidate...now we collectively need to send a lot more of them to the commons.

lynn writes:

Or is he simply a corporate mercenary for a new kind of war about to be waged on Canada ?

Like it or not lynn, we vote for a single seat in the house of commons, represented by a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. Whether the house is in session or not that MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT is the duly elected representative from that riding.

There are no mechanisms for changing this short of the death of the member, his resignation from the seat or the calling of a general election.

If you are from this members riding and unhappy about this; then you are in desperate need of a better understanding of the system. I recommend:

http://www.churchillsociety.org/c-%20teachers%20institute.htm

and

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/cangovlessonsel/

and

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalelections/a/federalelection.htm

Were 'we' (collectively as Canadians) to elect 308 INDEPENDANT MP's then those MP's would need to do the sort of negotiations that have been going on involving Mr Emerson in the formation of the government. So there are no requirements for any MP to take a seat as any party, the only thing that matters is the FPTP on election night.

Don't like it?

Lobby to change it or take up a bayonette...

Coyote has an interesting long (2-part) post that is looking in the right direction, but lacking some focus.

I recommend, Coyote, that you read; THE SOVERIGN INDIVIDUAL. Trying to do so without prejudice.

Though the work is now dated the forecasts are telling and very related to your observations.

Fiat lux writes:

This was the same big-business that was pumping $$$$ into the coffers of the now rump LiEberals. The 'illusion' of control or power is really not worth chasing and this 'illusion' is likely to get more cracks in it over the next decade. Count on the MSM that is connected to the largesse of the Government coffers to toady to whatever wizards are controlling the 'illusion'. Do not count on the $$$ to flow so freely from any of the real business players in Canada, unless those business interests can count on legal changes that match their needs.

Brain, not sure if you have seen these, but this is the old NCC site before they cleared off al Harpers articles: "http://web.archive.org/web/20020802104305/www.morefreedom.org/new_page_3.htm"

Anyways, is irony sweet of sour"

Food for thought:
•The Great thing about a parachute is that you can fold it up and jump again. Never thought about that, eh, Liberals.
•The difference between Stronach and Emerson is that, in fact, Emerson is the only one who will not be crossing the floor this time
•Today was a sad day for democracy, but so was yesterday.

A pox on both their houses!

Emerson is a true political whore, the kind that Canadian voters are tired of. Win as a Liberal candidate, which loses the election and accept a politcal goody of a cabinet post for the winning party. Sleeze, sleeze, sleeze.

If this country is to survive (I don't think it can), we need honourable men & women in power, not the current lot of half-wits and/or politcal sleeze-bags.

If Emerson had any moral fibre he should resign and run again as a conservative, as it stands now, he is guilty of politcal fraud. A man of no honour, just a lust for power.

the brain writes:

This is why I do not listen to the froth coming from any of the mouths of the 'so-called' main stream party candidates. More than 1/2 of the Conservative candidates in the last election were 'invisible' never at all-candidate meetings, not on talk-radio, etc. The stupid words that came from the LiEberals with the attack ads (especially the one targeting the military) just added to my deafness to their message.

The desires of the riding are exactly why Mr. Emerson wants in the tent (cabinet). Your commentary about the 'non-electability' of anyone in any riding has no value and I shall not comment any further.

Better understanding of what we, the electorate, is voting FOR would stand us all in better stead. I saw far too many of my fellow electors voting AGAINST something, rather than educating themselves and making a choice FOR.

IF you argue then that there was nothing to vote FOR, then the argument of voting INDEPENDANT or GREEN or anything else becomes even easier to advance, for at the very least you are voting FOR a new person or idea.

The whole rhetoric about the devil we know crap is just why this Mr. Emerson was elected, those who put him in the seat GOT THE DEVIL they wanted.

You may yet be right in the 'suicide' comment in the riding, but I would not take that bet - for if he can deliver anything to the riding from his position inside the 'tent', while Dosanj (wasn't he an NDPer?) gets zilch outside the 'tent'.

murdock

No question on your interpretation of both the law and custom. However, I think you've actually missed the point here. Mr Harper has said he 'solicited' David Emerson's decision to join the cabinet. I think that's the critical moral question and it doesn't really have anything to do with tradition.

Mr Harper has always said he'd made a commitment to 'doing' politics differently and more ethically. I never believed him but that doesn't diminish the sense that what he's done is a betrayal of his so-called principles. That's the real question here, and it has little or nothing to do with David Emerson and representative democracy, don't you think?

Oink, oink.

G West,

You raise an interesting point, that goes beyond the simple electorate.

If Mr. Harper did solicit, Mr. Emerson then an INFLUENCE PEDDLING charge may well be in the cards.

I suspect that it was not so cut and dry, generally such events come about from a mutual agreement point.

What is more important, in this lesson, is to better understand the choice we make at the ballot box and why we make it.

More of us need to pay attention to the CANDIDATE that we are choosing and pay less attention to the LEADER of their party. Otherwise we might as well hand over our 'franchise' to one or other of the 'star-chambers' in Downtown Toronto or (for now) Calgary.

The morality of Mr. Harper is the concern of his electorate, in his riding, for it is they, those electors that decide that he, Mr. Harper, gets into the house of commons. Mr. Harper is not from my riding, nor will he represent me in this parliament.

murdock:
Didn't you hear Harper's news conference after the swearing in? I'm just reporting, albeit not verbatim, exactly what he said. As to whether or not there is any likelihood of a criminal charge emanating from his actions I would say absolutely not, for legal reasons and because of the nature of what was being offered.

I think you're failing to confront the particular moral and ethical nature of the question. Clearly this is politics as usual and that is just as clearly what the now-prime minister had time and again promised would not be the case if the Canadian people voted for him and his party and gave them the honour of permitting them to serve as the people's government.

Stephen Harper has managed to squander, in the very first moments of his new government, whatever integrity he might have convinced the electorate he possessed. One might turn his comments about the NDP back against him and jokingly suggest that his party too is evidence that the devil exists and is active in the affairs of men.

Your last statement, while true in the strict sense, is meaningless in the context of practical and realistic politics - to suggest anything else is sophistry and I think you're aware of that.

So I take it, G West, that you favor voting along party lines?

This voting in-step with a party is what I mean by handing over the franchise to a 'star-chamber' that is running that party.

The electorate needs to pay attention to what is happening and stand for their own interest before being 'convinced' by advertisers or fear-mongers.

Further for G West;

Whatever you think Mr. Harper has 'squandered' is within your mind, for the collective 'electorate' has spoken and said that the Conservatives hold more seats than any other party, but not more than all the others combined.

The moral and ethical nature of any of the current batch of MP's is not stellar, nor would I really call ANY of them Honorable (unless forced to).

Watch for 'polyticks' (many blood-suckers) to take up more and more of everyday life until we, the people, are finally fed-up with it all and start to really PUSH BACK.

I still see PQ taking the lead in the shoving match, it almost does not matter what the Federal Government hands over, the damage is done (by Darth Cretinous) and the inevitable break-up of Canada may really begin with the next PQ referendum.

Davies, Fry, Owen, Dosanjh, Emerson....hmmm

Total votes in Vancouver 248,518
Total votes for above elected 118,658
Total votes for Emerson 20,062
Total votes for Jewel Thief 16,374

Vancouver - Gateway to the disoriented...

murdock

I'm not even considering the question of party politics (as you frame it) and I probably don't disagree with the essence of what you're saying. My point is strictly dealing with Mr Harper as an ethical agent. I think he's clearly failed the test, the ethical test that he set in terms of the standards he said he was going to live by as Prime Minister. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. I think those who oppose him and disagree with the kinds of changes he's proposing to make in this country need to remember to have long memories - politics, in the end, is the art of the possible.

As George Bush put it after he was re-elected for a second time, politicians have a certain amount of capital to spend. Mr Harper today, on the very first day of his administration, spent a bundle. Those who don't want to see him re-elected to a majority government have to keep this in mind and find ways to get him to spend a lot more of it in ways that really don't do him and his cause much good.

Far better to have a long memory and not spend too much time gnashing your teeth over what went on today.

There are some intersting points of view regarding the Conservative Party and the lack of leadership and/or qualified people that have been appointed to cabinet. Since the original article is taking about the fractured Liberal party and more specifically, could Micheal Ignatieff be the next healer, I would be interested to know who everyone here feels would be a suitable leader for the Liberal party.

Lets not worry so much about a Conservative party that really has no power to do much damage to this country with this current gov't. I want to know where you think the Liberal party is going and who the REAL contenders are. With the likes of McKenna, Manley, Tobin and Rock now out of the mix, the alternatives do not seem that appealing.

One point I've not seen mentioned in the discourse so far is the mantra being tossed around by the Cons and repeated like a chorus by the media, and more disappointing to me, by the opposition parties -- that no one wants an election any time soon. Is that so? Well, I for one, wouldn't mind. This "talking point" came up so often immediately after the election, I smelled a concerted campaign to have this "fact" lodge in the electorate's brain.

Why would the Cons want to do that? Pretty simple. Having been voted in with the thinnest majority in Canadian history, the Harper government would normally be on shaky ground, easily brought down by a collaboration of the three opposition parties. However, by lodging in people's brains that "no one" wants an election "any time soon" the Cons can govern almost as if they had a majority. Nice trick. In fact, just another one of their dirty tricks they'll be pulling until we can pull the plug on them. The Dirty Tricks Party.

I hope the three other parties give the Cons a taste of their own medicine, and collaborate behind the scenes to bring them down (with our without the Libs having chosen a new leader). I agree that big business will go all out to prevent that from happening, but man, if we give up, we really will be giving up our country.

By the way, someone mentioned the new Environment Minister, Rona Ambrose, not knowing much about her. She is a "communications person" and worked in Ralph Klein's office. Take one look at her -- does she give off any whiff of environmental concern??? Ever heard of her as a presence of any sort on the environmental front? Any leanings that way, any sentiments expressed??? Nada. Her experience, like so many of those Harper put in cabinet, is in communications (i.e. spin). I know whereof I speak. I've got a degree in marketing and communications, and actually worked for Alberta Environment while Ralph Klein was (wait for it) ... Environment Minister. LOL

As for Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety -- I sure hope we don't have any major disaster while these clowns are running our country. I can just imagine Harper saying "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" to Stockboy as he gets on his jetski, resplendent in his wetsuit riding to a rescue mission.

Gotta laugh, cause I'm so tired of saying, told you so. I sure hope all the people who voted for that nice, decent Harper man are turning purple today. And I hope that purple turns to white-hot anger, and action. No less than our country is at stake.

Political Thoughts
Disagree that the current situation has rendered the Cons powerless; in fact, quite the contrary. Today Mr Harper continued his demolition of the Liberals (and their credibility and sense of themselves) in much the same way he's been chipping away at them ever since the Gomery Commission began its hearings. I don't honestly know if the Liberals can recover in the short term. The agenda is in Harper's hands and he knows it and there's very little the Liberals can do about that now, sorry, but there it is. That's what Rafe's essay is about and, as I said, it may be pretty close to the truth.

The Liberals have always understood what was necessary to stay in power and they've been very successful at it. This time they managed to lose an election when there was absolutely no reason why they had to, other than incompetence. Let's be clear, the Cons didn't so much win as the Liberals lost and now Harper has all the resources of the federal government, as well as a full treasury, to build his small power base into an efficient political machine. He's clever and very shrewd and today he demonstrated that he has has no compunctions about using exactly the kind of tactics that the Liberals always used to enhance and hang onto power.
One of the reasons no one seems willing to step forward and declare they want to contest the leadership is, in my opinion, that they realize the situation the party is in and they're not really interested in taking Harper on.

The Liberals know if there is another election in the next 16 months they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected. Harper may well screw up, he certainly blew some of his stock of goodwill today and things can change in a hurry, but the game is in his hands now...that may not be appealing but it's unavoidable, in my opinion.

I think all you Liberals are getting your selves worked up into a lather over nothing, sit back relax,
nothing earth shattering is going to occur,give these people a chance to do their jobs, after all this is their home and country also.

ultimately when the dust settles emerson will be viewed by as an excellent addition to a very efficient and effective cabinet. most will view emerson's move as a signal that the conservatives are no where near as right as all you lefties blather about. the liberals are screwed and harper is building a strong center-right party that will win the next election in a walk, especially after the other 3 libs cross the floor in the next year. get used to that beautiful smile and the minivan guys and dolls.

Sunny writes

Well, I for one, as a voter in Vancouver Kingsway, would like a byelection soon to find out how many voters like the idea of being represented by an MP who supports Harper and his party. Doubt I get one tho...

Hey Elliot
Have you actually read what's being said here? No question Harper has the reins and that he'll likely win a majority next election - whenever that happens. Rafe's article suggests that the Liberals here in Canada may be about to undergo the same kind of crisis that destroyed the party in England after the first world war. DO you agree that there are similarities or not? The subsidiary issue is the Emerson defection - and whether or not it was an appropriate move for either Emerson or Harper. It'd be nice to hear your opinions.

Sure, Emerson's started tongues wagging - he's even managed to provoke a few folks into re-examining their gullibility regarding Harper's snowy white sheep's costume. The sad fact is, his vision of Canada is going to hold sway for some time to come. I don't see any credible successor for the leadership of the Libs and Layton will be fondly remembered as yet another earnest NDP bridesmaid.

The best possible outcome for those who hope gor a civil, just society is a succession of minority governments. No absolutely corrupting majorities and perhaps a re-examination of our electoral system. People are obviously disgusted with the way our governments behave when unfetterd and have now twice sent that message. We have spent the last 139 years with politics as a bloodsport, a divisive exercise rather than a discourse between caring individuals. Yes, that is hopelessly naive except for one simple thing - we have refused AGAIN to grant a majority to people we mistrust. Liberal, Conservative, whatever the labels we are starting to realise that, in packs, they are much more alike than different. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for this because we have been so damn eager to be bought with our own money. Rewarding horrible behaviour is a fine way to get more of the same.

I think the interesting thing at the moment for Harper is not who is on the front bench, rather it will be those who didn't make the from bench. There are some pretty loose cannons in that backbench and some pretty hefty promises to keep to the fundy crowd. That's were all of the fun is going to be.
As to the Liberals, clearly outhustled this time but the future may not be all that bleak. They will need time to re-group and focus on a new leader whomever that might be then consider that the landscape has changed enough for them to be true Liberals. Sometimes the big tent can be a drag on new ideas. We will just have to wait and see.

g west; i'm not so sure that i'd dismiss the liberals so earnestly. they have some very powerful and wealthy backers and they'll be back, although it may take more time than they'd like. i think rafe is overstating their demise, as they still won 103 seats and are in a position to provide a strong opposition once they elect a new leader. the significance of emerson is as i've stated above. the conservatives are back as a center-right party and not what they've been perceived as for the last few years, which was an extreme right-wing party. i think we're back to a competitive lib-con rivalry again, with the ndp providing some comic relief in the wings.

Elliot
I'd have to say:
1. COns are only centre-right as long as they are in a minority; then they'll revert to their reform and fundamentalist roots, in my opinion.
2. Liberal power has always been based upon a strong showing in Quebec. I think that's dissolved for the forseeable future and means they won't be back for quite a while, if ever.
3. WHo's going to lead the Liberals? I think they need someone really new and different and I just don't see anybody in the wings right now.
4. I agree that it's hard to see how the NDP can make itself relevant in this house.
5. In the end, the Martin liberals were afraid of an election in a way Harper doesn't have to be, the dynamics have changed.
6. Harper's biggest weakness is his lack of popularity among women. In my opinion that's where the Liberals have to look to rebuild.

I have to agree with woody, give the guys a chance. I'm pretty far left myself and don't agree with much of the Con agenda but this is a democracy and they're the party with the most seats. And I've had it with the lying Liberals although I realize most of you still retain a fondness for their left-wing rhetoric, right-wing economics and outright corruption.

The people of Canada are not complete idiots. Sure people like Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris and Grant Devine get elected but they also get defeated. Harper's gov't is so shaky it could fall on a single bad move and they know it. Dryden's or Ignatieff's style and intelligence will look great if compared to incompetence. Harper knows that and if he doesn't someone will remind him.

Based on that we might get some decent legislation out of Harper. The accountability act sounds good, basing my opinion on that of Democracy Watch. If the Cons only last a year and parliament is improved then as far as I'm concerned its worth it. The fact I've seen the last of Paul Martin is a bonus.

As for Emerson, he's a political slut of the first order. There was no principle, no vote to bring down a gov't, he crossed the floor simply for the money and the power of being a cabinet minister. Since this gov't won't last more than two years and voters will still remember I expect him to resign when the next election is called.

I think BC has a bunch of very promising out of work former MLAs that would add fresh flavour to the fumbling feds. I would love to see both Judy Tyabji and Gordan Wilson (if not for the sole pleasure of seeing BC politics on Oprah again). Any chance David Anderson would venture back to fix things now that Martin is gone?
If Harper and Emerson really want to bring integrity back into Canadian politics (and who are they kidding, we all know they haven't gotten that far in the dictionary to be able to define the term) there would be a by-election in Vancouver-Kingsway, and when Emerson loses on that one - harper can give him a "temp senate position" so he can sit in the cupboard - I mean cabinet - since he apparently has no interest or ability to sit with the Commoners being the big-shot businessman who will do BC the grand favour of selling it piece by piece to the highest bidder. What a stand up guy - he won't let something like partisan politics stand in the way of making an inflated buck.

.

Au contraire, Emerson just made the NDP relevant. The combined Con-NDP-Indep vote is now bigger than the Liberal-Bloc.

That's a recipe for electoral reform if there's enough of the old Reform in the new Cons to still want it to happen.

Frank

How do you figure the NDP can support the Cons now when they just finished propping up the Liberals for a year? In my opinion the only thing the NDP can do is try to find a way to make common cause with the Liberals or at least some of them to force the Cons to get in bed with the Bloc. They're closer to the Liberals philosophically anyway and the Bloc might be a kind of poison pill for the conservatives. I think that's where Rafe's British analogy makes the most sense - the way Labour started its move to power in Britain in 1906 with a pact with the Whigs. Rafe didn't mention that in his essay though!

Make common cause with the Libs on what basis? The Liberal gov't fell because the Libs didn't want to make common cause with the NDP. They believed their polling and told the NDP to take a hike.

The NDP can prop up the Cons as easily as the Libs. And unlike with the Libs, they can push for electoral reform, a long-term NDP goal after all, and might get it.

As for Rafe, I think Churchill was a political slut too but he had better writers than Emerson. Emerson should have said, "When I was a young fool I was a Lib, but now that I'm older and wiser I'm a Con". Might have made some of those old Reformers happier since they seem to be having trouble swallowing it.

On the basis that they are neither of them conservative; that they tend to be much more socially activist. That they are both relatively popular with young people and women - neither of which are too keen about the cons.

Disagree with your conclusion about the fall of the Liberal Govt. The idiot in the piece was Jack Layton. By not continuing to support Martin till February he gave up the chance to make more progress on an agenda he apparently believed in. His withdrawing support for the Liberals just made him look like a parrot and gave the Conservatives the chance they needed to focus on Martin's shortcomings as a leader, in my opinion..DId you notice that Harper virtually ignored Jack Layton for the whole campaign - almost as if he didn't exist! THere is no way that the Conservatives will permit electoral reform, in my opinion, at least in a way that would benefit smaller parties like the greens and the NDP. What would be the long-term advantage for the NDP to make common cause with the Conservatives anyway - the conservatives have all the cards and they're not afraid of an election because they know they'd win. If the economy suddenly turned around you might have a point but in the present context this situation is most like 1957/58 when Diefenbaker won a minority (57) and followed it up (58) with a huge majority - again, in my opinion.

The Reform wing of the Cons used to push for electoral reform. They may not believe in it anymore now that they're in power but they still like to mouth the words. Just like the Liberals do on medicare, the homeless, NAFTA, among others. Jack can now ask them to put up or shut up, if they're going to claim to be pro-reform then the Cons and NDP will get along.

Electoral reform is a huge issue for the NDP historically. Its worth working with the Cons to get. If the Cons don't want to then there will be no NDP support. The Cons do not in fact hold all the cards, there's 308 in the deck and they only have 126. They might win a majority in a new election, Paul Martin thought the same.

As for the fall of the Libs, Jack Layton wasn't the PM. He had no chance to make progress on any agenda because the Liberal polling told them they could win so they didn't have to put up with Jack rewriting their budget any more.

Layton and the small NDP caucus were shut out of the decision making so they did the only thing they could, they withdrew their support.

The Libs thought they could demonize Harper and NDP support would collapse out of fear. They'd get rid of Jack and get their majority. There is no other credible reason for why they decided not to work with the NDP any longer.

I said 126? 125

The Liberals should be looking in the First nations community for a leader............

It's time all the "usual suspects" cleared out, come up for air as it were and rid themselves of the miasma of putrescence.

Not that native leaders can't be as corrupt, but Canada is much more than some French/English dichotomy, hunkered down in the centre of the nation.

RickW
That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Who would you suggest, Frank Fontaine?

Frank
That's pretty much what the party line has been, from the NDP point of view. For the reasons I gave above I think it was a bad idea. Jack would have had to run the campaign the way he did no matter when it was fought and a normal (35) day election campaign in the early spring (late winter in eastern Canada) would have been a very different kind of election. I'm not sure there's any way to make the case that the Liberals could have hung onto power but I'm convinced that there's almost no way the NDP's going to get much out of this mishmash.

Interestingly though, if there's enough fuss about this Emerson thing out west and a similar brouhaha in Quebec over Michael Fortier there is always, I'm beginning to think, a chance that a quick election might work against Harper's master plan. Do you think Harper would have solicited Emerson and appointed Fortier if the Liberals weren't leaderless? I doubt it. I think he knows the Libs can't go to the people right now and it changes the dynamics. Maybe the right call is for the NDP to find a way to go back to the people - but only if it happens before Harper can start to shovel the $ to the provinces.

RickW
SHould be Phil Fontaine, sorry to him , and you.

RickW, I'd love to see a native PM.

GW,

This is what the New Politics Initiative was supposed to do wasn't it? I don't think Jesus returning and publically announcing his support for the NDP will move them above 40 seats. They need electoral reform more than any other party and the Cons should agree unless they prefer a majority every 15 years.

Emerson yes, but probably not Fortier.

Methinks you underestimate the capacity of the NDP for treachery, and its ability to do ideological backbends as well as any other. I agree with Frank and others, that it is at least as likely in this Parliament that the NDP will seek to ally itself at some level with the Conservatives as the Liberals and the Bloc-, unless of course, the neocon arrogance of the Conservatives drives them totally unrealistic and wingy, which I do not think is "likely" to happen. Not yet. Unless... Unless... Watch those Liberals. :-)(The brass ring the ruling class wants is majority governance again, preferably in neoconservative hands, and the Conservatives would dearly love nothing better than to deliver that for them. )

The NDP, I presume, are at least as capable of reading what is happening here with and between the Liberals and Conservatives as I am. Besides, what would make one think the NDP is not at least as capable of a Grand Alliance with the Conservatives as the SDP in Germany?

Opportunism has historically defined the NDP as much as it has the Liberals. It merely has not worked out as well for them for other historical reasons, and the ruling class's perception of things.

These are all parties of capitalism and the essential system status quo we have here. They are not in any wise diametrically opposed, but rather more agreed anyway-, except for the shadow boxing that must go on at election time, as part of what passes for current democracy. More, they are all really much more defined, including the Greens in that broad embrace, by what they agree on than what they differ about.

I thought everyone knew that what we are really talking about and dealing with here, at this stage of things within the status quo social order, is but still, the search for the lesser of evils.

I suspect that if Emerson wants to run in the next election he is already looking for a new riding, maybe in Alberta.

I certainly hope nothing happens so we have to hear Harper telling Doris "heck of a job, stock"

Perhaps Harper, Emerson and their ilk could benefit ethically by examining the career of Sheila Copps.

I should have said, for greater actual accuracy, "...the search for the lesser of the same evil."

G West writes:

The main reason for the loss 'this time' is the major divide in the LiEberal Party. The politicoes that knew what they were doing left with Darth Cretinous. Others that could have helped, simply stood with thier hands in their pockets watching the train wreck called the 2006 Martin campaign. The Martinized parts of the LiEberal Party are all scurrying for cover, Mr Emerson is one that has found cover.

Examples, other than the most recent parroting of Harper's justice mantra by Jack Layton during the campaign, please! THere are plenty of examples from the past where the NDP and the CCF have stood on principle.

DNA writes:

Start agitating (by heckling EVERY PRESENTATION EMERSON MAKES IN THE RIDING) or lobbying.

Otherwise pull on your boots and pick up a bayonette...

Emerson's defection should serve as a lesson about over riding the grassroots and parachuting "star" candidates into ridings. In this case it came back to bite the Martin Liberals, fortunately they won't be the Martin Liberals now. Maybe it's time for Sheila to come back to the soon to be renewed Liberal party. I'm sure a lot of Van-Kingsway voters now regret not voting NDP/

Murdock: That riding is center lefty, not conservative, and as you have noted, people vote for colors, not individuals. Whether or not we agree on whats wrong with this in principle, (because I do agree with your point on principle), it doesn't change the fact that the Cons came in third in this riding, the people of Vancouver as with Toronto and Montreal didn't shine to the Cons and for good reason, namely, better media or more media for that matter, as voters on the whole just aren't that stupid when we have the facts. Fact is, as good as Emerson can do for his riding or region, he's seen as talking out of both sides of his mouth for months in a row and that is not something anyone with principle, can forget. He's toast in Vancouver. Now... the Cons could ship him to Alta! Guaranteed love there for such lawyers and principles.

Political thoughts: Never had much favor for the A team to begin with. My top three picks are: 1) Ken Dryden. This meek, inactive, quiet as a mouse hockey giant is my number one for two reasons: People love him, and hes got integrity. ie, majority electable, and the Libs better wake up to who actually is "majority" electable. 2) Ralph Goodale. Needs no explanation. Been there for 30 years, no secrets about this man, and that income trust "smear" is all it was. 3) Belinda Stromach. She's the least the of three, for good reasons. She's inexperienced, seen as wanting power, and a poor speaker. I don't see a dumb blonde here, when handling reporters and I believe her motives for Con leadership go beyond courting the corporations, but I could be wrong. If she ends up as a Lib leader, I'd be into a Lib minority to find out.

As for Micheal, think about the way the media spins it!!! A team, B team, media picks their favorites and who's picking? Conservative biased NCC bought papers? What, we believe everything we read now? C'mon, folks. You get a few major papers making picks, and the herd mentality journalists take over from there, and I'm afraid to say it, but Rafe should be a little more sheppard and a little less sheep. Granted, Mikes name has become a household name, lately, but this is a P.M. candidate were looking for, here. Don Bell can do better than him. Mikes got published material out that can sink him, 30 years in other countries... I'm all for voting in someone that doesn't live in a box or swims in an ocean instead of a fish bowl, here, someone who knows how the world works, but...

Dangrice: Yah, missed that one. Some real gems there! :-D

Sunny: like your views.

As for the rest, the Cons can act like its a majority until the Libs find a leader. Are they dangerous as a minority? If they're on their way to a majority... of course! And is there a party hoping for an election any time soon? Maybe the NDP. But for right now, as Frank has pointed out, they have the balance of power with Andre.

Thing is, to trust the Cons with any legislation is to pave the way for a majority government. "Oh, look. They did such wonderful work on accountability and we have day care checks and and farm cheques sooner, and... " Are you guys listening to yourselves? Check out my links! They'll sewer this country if given a chance, and this accountability act... I've got problems with it. I'm expecting some pretty snaky changes between now and then, as well. Will they go for PR reform? Only if it gives them a majority or leads them there. Will they go for a triple E senate? Of course! Less number to bribe! Look at the act before any of you pass sentence on it, because neither of them will be there. Its about the way contracts are awarded and "let me tell you" in Paul Martin fashion that this bill has flaws. What, we're going to trust the same Harper who defeated third party campaign contribution disparancy laws through the NCC? Have some of you lost your minds? Check out my and Dangrices links. When it comes to accountability, Harper is the biggest hypocrite of all.

murdock
Emerson makes most of his presentations in the back rooms, always has - the guy one has to heckle is Harper. Emerson's reputation had already established 'what' he was; his arrangements with Martin, and now Harper, were just two different examples of haggling over the price.

for Stan M,

Do you really think that the LiEberals will get the time needed to 'sort it all out'?

They have not even got plans for a policy convention, nor for a clear leadership race...

IF the 1950's repeat and we see Harper call for another election (or get the others to 'force' him into one over a populist money bill) in the next 3-4 months then the LiEberals could find themselves in the wilderness with less seats than the NDP currently...should that happen watch the knives really come out!

The brain:
1. Dryden - maybe
2. Goodale - no way. THe only reason the people of Regina keep electing him is to keep him Ottawa and off the streets of Regina - he's worse than Paul Martin senior was, and that's bad!
3. Belinda - wouldn't be any more successful that Jack Horner as a leadership candidate - remember him?

Project needs more work I think.

Coyote's quote:

"I thought everyone knew that what we are really talking about and dealing with here, at this stage of things within the status quo social order, is but still, the search for the lesser of the same evil."

Its becoming apparent to me that some of us haven't searched all that hard.

G West: You don't seriously think Jack "the smear" is perfect in principle, now do you? Historically, the NDP feds may be less opportunistic, but lately? They're opportunistic, especially in the present. Apologies, I'm just not a Jack Layton fan. As for who, I haven't looked closely at their candidates elect, but I like a certain female from the Island.

rkewan: I must admit. Sheila is still a player, and seniors still vote. Her history does reveal certain things I like to see in a politician.

For the brain: We agree that, sadly, a majority vote color not individual. I think it is due to the advertising methods and lack to proper understanding of our power as the electorate. One complication in the last election was the short time since the one before - this will be made worse if another is forced or called fast again, mostly because Inde candidates cannot organize in time.

G West:
Emerson was a parachute candidate in the first place, therefore he was totally voted into office because of his color and association to MARTIN. Martin is now toast and so his 'benefactor' is also. I think that Dosanj may not run again since he is another Martinized LiEberal.

As Rafe started with the article the Liberal Party of Canada is in deep do-do, most of it of their own making. Any past Liberal connected to the scandals IN ANY WAY is just too easy a target for the opposition and may not be electable as a leader. The re-make of the Liberal Party may be too long in coming and I definately see an opening for the NDP = they only need to take the same action as UK Labor party: dump the union connections (should be easier to do with the past performance of Buzz Hargrove!)

Belinda makes a good point today comparing her trip across the floor to Emerson's. She points out that she had specific reasons for changing colors AND could well have had to face the voters in her riding imminently, depending on how the vote turned out, that day. Emerson on the other hand cannot point to principle, indeed could have declared himself leader of the Man-Boy Love Association party now that he has tricked the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway into electing him under a false flag.

G West: Dryden is the only one I like for now, that has majority potential. The rest are complete risks, aside from Goodale. People still like surplus's and your assessment of Wascana voters keeping him off the streets of Regina... well, he got 65% of their vote for decades. I don't see guys like Emerson looking to press palms with explanations to voters any time soon. Emerson definitely won't spend much time in his riding. I don't see Goodale as mounting a concensus for a majority, but I see him getting a minority. As for the rest, they are risks to worse unless I've missed someone.

Murdock:
Hopefully we'll have more informed voters with each election (I hope).

This is A quote from Harper from 2001. You all quote history like it matters, and it does, especially with those who have a record to follow like Stephen Harpers:

"Election gag laws, by the way, are laws which make it a crime for citizens to spend their own money to express their own views during elections.

Four times in the past 17 years politicians have tried to impose such laws on the country. And four times the group I head, the National Citizens’’ Coalition, has helped challenge these laws in court. Each time the NCC has won.

Gag laws clearly infringe on the right of citizens to freely and peacefully express themselves, and to work with other citizens to advance their views. Freedom of expression and freedom of association, as well as the right to an informed vote, are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

The NCC is a conglomerate of U.S. oil among other corporate led, along with church groups, an NCC organization that, like I've said in previous posts, spent 18 to 19 million in the media during the 88' election to promote free trade. In 77', their inner circle of members were sitting board members of U.S. corporations totalling over 74 billion dollars worth of market cap. The only citizens interested in overturning Fed gag laws, are Canadian traitors to their country, bought out by the NCC.

This snake we now call PM is our worst nightmare and if any of you think otherwise, think again. Check the links I and Dangrice have provided. Harper is the biggest U.S. corporate sellout there is and for him to talk accountability is to be the biggest hypocrite in office.

He's all propaganda. Bush, same thing. If anyone has followed U.S. politics lately, Bush's latest sell is to tap the phones of any or all Americans "to fight terrorism". This bozo wants to make watergate legal. It used to be we needed a warrant and probable cause to snoop. Not any more, according to Bush, and its legal. Yah, they talk about flipping burgers and apple pie and baseball, and wear cowboy shirts and jeans and tell everyone what they want to hear, "I'm fighting for the little guy", the one's who work hard and pay their taxes and blah, blah, blah..." Its propaganda. They say this and do that, its time we started looking HARD at what Harpers said.

If you all want to talk about something realistic, start talking about what the goals of the NCC was before and during Harpers reign as president of the NCC, and while you're at it, look at what Harpers undeniable and infallible support has been for this organization throughout the NCC's ENTIRE HISTORY.

The brain:
Don't disagree re Jack Layton - that should have been obvious from what I posted. Goodale as leader would be the answer to Harper's prayers. I was serious that Regina voters support Goodale to keep his bafflegab off the streets of Regina - I speak from personal experience. He knows enough not to be convinced by the flatterers who would have him run. If Martin had had any sense he'd have asked Goodale to step down as soon as the RCMP started looking into the Income Trust leaks. Not that Goodale had done anything wrong. The point was simply that it just underlined the campaign slogans and played into the hands of Harper and his handlers. As much as anything, that's the reason Paul Martin lost the election, in my opinion.

The brain comments:

This could be a 'faint hope' for civics is not taught as any part of public education and the under 24 crowd of Canadian voters is feeling more and more disenfranchised and wondering why they vote at all. This sentiment is made more so by the actions of 'rich folks' like Stronach and Emerson.

Self-education can only go so far, as living as a person comes first for so many of the young. Watch for the Green Party to grow as it alone is speaking to that part of the electorate.

I have spoken with many of my younger friends from Halifax, Quebec City, Etobickoe (sp?), Winnipeg, Edmonton and Victoria and nearly all of them express a total frustration with the main line parties, the MSM and their depection of Federal politics. Almost all of them are seeking ways to not have thier efforts go to support anything in or from Ottawa...

G West:
Goodale isn't my number one pick, but he could carry the Libs to a minority. You made it clear that the voters in his riding voted for him to leave, and I've made it clear that the voters voted in his riding repeatedly to represent their interests for this country.

Due to the timeframes of his tenure in this riding and the percentages of support Goodale has enjoyed in Wascana, there is little room for half rights or half wrongs between us on this one.

As for Goodale stepping down... why? Why step down on party accusations? If it came from another source of accusation as other ministers have stepped down for, thats one thing, but this wasn't the case, certainly hasn't been the root cause to ministers stepping down in the past and it was obvious that his pre announcement of later making an announcement of "settling it" was the "leak".

If I was Martin under such circumstances, I would have done the same thing, and come out with the "well, any party read the RCMP brochure of this is what we do and thats why we are here and call the number..." just a little bit sooner. If every cabinet minister was expected to step down from party accusations, the government wouldn't run. Thats how it is!

Fact is, this was pure politics from Layton, one of the reasons why I don't consider him to be worthy of being the leader of the NDP and time will exonerate Ralph to begin with and everyone knows it, including Jack Layton. Will it make Jack look bad? There isn't an NCC corporate bought paper along with an honest media along side them that won't try it.

Ask Ralph to step down? What for? To look guilty in the middle of an election when you were already guilty of Montgomery? It might have costed the Liberals an extra 30 or 40 seats and gave the Cons an outright majority. I wouldn't have taken that chance in Pauls shoes, not for one minute.

Look at the timing of Layton breaking alliances. It wasn't healthcare so much as it was his own vision on what he thought he could do to double his seats by creaming those scandalous Liberals by piling it on. Mongomery was undeniable.

Its about getting the head to nod. Government is corrupt with adscam. The head nods. Oh, look at the leaks from the finance ministry. The head nods. Oh, look at how corrupt they all are. We can do better, we are working persons party, and we are only alternative to the Libs, and we can work with the Cons if they propose good legislation, and... buddy, its all about getting the head to nod and thats why I don't like Layton. He didn't have to make an issue out of nothing. He already had issues in front of them that were very real.

Layton could have gone after Harper and didn't. Layton couldn't have had a better opportunity than he had, and the most he could do, the most, was 29 seats. He should have had 40+. His lying accusations, his inconsistencies, his so called emotional tyrade with hand guns and crime sentencing as his reason to be so Conservative, his inability to answer reporters questions, especially on CBC interviews by Peter, his behavior in the debates... tell me, what would the NDP's chances have been like if he was honest? If he listened to questions? If he took less than initially popular stands? If he talked about the specifics of his platforms? With the Libs, we know where we stand. Heck, they ran the country for the last 12 years. With the NDP, you have to look at their web sites, or read the government spending tallies on reality check. All Jack does is talk rhetoric.

Were getting a glimse of the hypocracy of the Cons, but we should have known this was coming. Anyone who's followed politics should have known that the Reform party was just an NCC extension. Thats it, that's all. A party formed out of lobby interests from U.S. and/or corporate interests along with right wing church groups and to think Harper is otherwise at anytime, is to be entirely friggin slow.

Murdock:
It is a faint hope of mine, and I think your right. The Greens will win favor in time. My percentages are rusty, but 34% of eligable voters voted under the age of 35 in this election, as opposed to 65% of eligable voters overall. As this generation ages, so too, will the likelyhood of voting Green as it is a younger movement. As the environment worsens locally and globally, the Greens will become more and more representative of peoples interests. What could put them on the map is just one MP elect and this means they need better candidates than they've had running in the majority of their ridings.

THe brain:
Because corruption and the hint of corruption was really the only club Harper had to beat Martin with and Martin could have shut him up big time by accepting Goodale's resignation for the period while the horsemen did their investigation. Old legal maxim, not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done.

I agree with you about Layton. THat's not the point, in politics perception is everything. I just posted a quote from Stephen Harper that essentially confirms he doesn't favour any restrictions on MPs moving from one party to another - which sort of puts the ball back in Rafe's court don't you think? It's on the other comment board.

To G West:

No, not Phil Fontane. No one we have heard of. The public types have all been sucked into the system.

I really can't figure out why I keep hearing that the CONSERVATIVES are back in power....
Is this not the Alliance/Reform party with a borrowed name ????
This party has NEVER been in power before!

...oh, and Rafe...the weather is starting to improve!
just about time to jump into that little klinker built and sail away! ...forever...

The Conservatives govern well?/ Ha! Ha!

Just ask lieing Brian and the Fifth Estate!

Bring on Bob Rae and a united left!

Are you kidding? That Ignatieff has NOT been in Canada, and therefore part of the suck-up party machinery that thrives on patronage and pork-barrel and big-man butt-kissing is a GOOD thing.

He's "outside the loop" of the old-boy politics of the Liberals and not part of the country's business establishment either (like one Mr Emerson). Many of the new Eastern European democracies wound up with presidents and prime ministers who hadn't been in their countries for more than 30 years, but "came home to serve" in the absence of other qualified leadership.

At least Ignatieff's motivations seem altruistic; rather than opportunistic, as we have seen with Emerson and Stronach. And, to re-state, he doesn't have any of the insider baggage that nearly any other leadership candidate has. I'd rather have a professor-turned-political neophyte for a Prime Minister than a party hack, that's for sure.

Skookum1

And futhermore, he thinks, he can write and he hasn't spent the last 30 years in the US either; for anyone who takes the trouble to look, which you obviously have, they'd discover his background includes a good deal of time in England at Cambridge, Oxford and the LSE. He is at home with the media and spent, I believe, about 10 years researching and writing his biography of Isaac Berlin among an embarrassing list of other accomplishments. He's almost my exact contemporary and I wish I could say I'd done as much with my life as he has with his!

All the fuss about his 'support' of the war in Iraq is a disingenuous spin on a tortured decision about which he has been honest and straightforward. If David Emerson's intellectual adornments are a prize for the Conservatives, Ignatieff's potential to contribute to the whole country, in any public role, would be a worthy ornament too.

Speaking as a non-political observer, he appears to be more than equal to Mr Harper, that's for sure too.

Just thought I'd add, for anyone interested, a link to a long interview Ignatieff did with the Guardian just before the election.

It pretty much spells him out clearly. That he has his fans at the Guardian is something I experienced when I worked there -- he wrote columns for that paper and The Observer and I edited them sometimes.

I'm not a fan of his on severals levels, but I think he'd show up Harper for the neo-con hologram he is.

Link: guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1690636,00.html

Cathryn Atkinson

Thanks for that Cathryn, I read the article but I'd forgotten about it - (although I checked my archive and found I'd kept a copy) I hope this thread still has enough life in it that somebody besides me sees it and reads the article; It's always pleasant to find sings of intelligent life amongst postings like these.
Cheers

should be 'signs' in the 2nd last line above - looks like I could use some editing too.
CHeers

Which brings to mind one of the funniest bits of the Harper sell-job during the campaign: the push that was made by pundits and his spinners that he is (supposedly) the intellectual equal of Pierre Trudeau. AS IF.

The doubly amusing part of it is that, in trying to give their boy some "intellectual weight", they compared him to the most arrogant (albeit intelligent) Liberal of all time. We know Harper's arrogant; we have yet to see evidence of the intelligence.