I think John Ryan may be onto something. In order for Canada to avoid becoming like the states, we should merge the center left into the Democrats, create a two party nation, and then elect our president... I mean Prime Minister.

i like to think canadians have a little more intellectual capacity than MARTIN.
he says Harper will be there for awhile !
Damn ! i should look in the Dictionary,again, and see what a Minority govt. means ?

Come to think of it , i already know !

How about you , Martin ? check the numbers lately?what does the REST of Canada think ? are they on you side ? or are you whistling thru the graveyard at midnight ?

I am with you John Ryan on many points. I have a great fear of Harper and his Bush style goals for this country. I do not want to be a ghetto state for the US and I do see that day coming. Once they take away our natural resources and Harper slashes our social and economic programs, we are screwed. Big time.

As a liberal I can't envision joining the NDP. I wouldn't rule it out though and I NEVER thought I would say that. Harper is a scary man and the henchmen he has surrounded himself with should be wearing repugnant party pins. Just under their C.R.A.P. pins on their lapels.

Harper is not a true Canadian. His love of Bush and the big green military machine is no secret. I think Canadians are heading the way of those addled brained southern "cousins" who don't have the capability to think for themselves and use their good sense. Harper will be a reality for years to come. Canada as we know it will cease to exist. We will be absorbed into that cesspool south of the border.

I'm with dangrice.com on this one!
I'm all in favour of voting for "the evil of two lessers"! :)
It seems to work for America very well!

However, I should add that the Liberals have worked with the NDP before and stolen (Sorry, I mean borrowed!) many of the NDP's ideas such as Medicare. A merger, I don't know..but a more solid coalition is possible.

Kevan Hudson
Suncheon, Korea

Hey Martin, still living in the only house in BC that didn't increase in value during the 1990's?

I know I know, you've already said you don't read boring stuff like BC Stats or StatsCan data, you just know what you know and everyone else is a communist.

Considering this author is writing for The Tyee, perhaps it might be in his interest to read what another author has written on the subject:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/02/06/LiberalDivide/

In it Rafe Mair points out clearly why such a merger (as was tried in the UK) will not work out. Such energy will ultimately go for naught and leave many others dissillusioned with the process.

If the program is to win over the voter back to other than the CONformers, then this program is not it.

As for the article, the day I vote for the corrupt weather-wane Liberals is the day I forgive El Premier for driving drunk in Hawaii.

If the Libs want the NDP vote then they should earn it and stop acting like Cons by slashing everything of any value to the poor and working-poor of this country as soon as they get elected while telling us ad infinitum how big their socially conscious hearts are.

Funny thing is my vote requires more than multi-millionaire Liberals calling everyone else either a neo-con or a member of the Shining Path.

For there to be a "centre-left" coalition it would require two actual centre-left parties and at the present time there is only one in Canada. When the Libs move left enough that Bay Street stops supporting them John may be onto something.

murdock
Nice to see you're back, not surprised Ryan's suggestion would motivate you. I think you need to read Rafe's essay again....

Also, what is the fear-mongering of "could change the face of Canada"? Its been changed. Canada is far different than it was in 1983.

I get tired of hearing how the Cons could change Canada. Where has everybody been the last 20 years? Its done, we have the t-shirt and it was made in China with borrowed US capital.

Its nothing but Liberal code talking. They'd say the same thing if the NDP was on the verge of forming a gov't. They'd be telling the Cons how the NDP had to be stopped before they changed the face of Canada. What they mean is, Canada equals Liberal.

As for deep integration, the Liberals are all for it, they have been all for it. If a warm and fuzzy Clinton was president instead of the reviled baby Bush they would even promote it publically.

I'm supposed to forget they were in power for 12 years and could have taken steps to roll back the worst of Mulroney and didn't? Its not like they forgot where they left the paperwork for those bills, they just didn't want to.

Frank
I don't disagree with what you're saying. On the other hand, if, 20 months from now the Cons are polling at 42 - 44 % I think the minds of a lot of progressive people - NDP and Liberal, not to mention Green - might be singularly concentrated. It was a Labour/Liberal coalition in the UK that led into to the destruction of the Grits and the rise of Labour (under Ramsay MacDonald) in 1924. Shortlived govt at that time but look at the rest of the 20th century and compare with the CCF/NDP's success at the federal level in Canada. Not saying history would repeat itself, but, I sure don't want Harper coming back with a majority government either.

G West, but who would be the leader of a Lib-NDP merger? Manley? (Who I'm sure has the Stars N Stripes tattoed on himself somewhere) Ignatieff? (Torture if necessary but not necessarily torture)

Whoever it was it would be a Liberal and considering their debt it would be one that appeals to Bay Street not Hastings Street.

But the biggest problem I have with a merger is we become a two party state and that means the "left"-wing party will move as close to the right-wing party as it can because there is simply no good reason to ignore voters who aren't firmly in the other camp.

Politics will be a constant battle for the people in the middle, there will be no "left"-wing politics in an NDP-Liberal coalition just as there isn't from the US Democrats. Because left-wing policies will scare off the voters humming and hawing between the two parties.

Better to have an actual left-wing party than a choice between two who will do the same thing anyway.

Frank:
I recognize there are lots of problems, not least of which questions of leadership and the bay street influence. I suspect the bay street thing will solve itself since those dudes were never anything but opportunists. THey'll be moving over to the Cons forthwith if they haven't already.

Look, it's late and I can't go into it any further tonight. Let me paste in the response I wrote to Rafe's original essay a couple of weeks ago and you can tear it apart. I'll check back in the morning. It's long so I'll have to post it below instead of just adding it to this.
Cheers

Frank:
Originally addressed to 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?

This frankly sounds like a Liberal desperate to regain power. The idea of the NDP joining with the party that has spent 13 years as the frontman for corporate Canada is laughable.

Also, it seems rather backwards that creating a two party system like the US will "usher in a whole new political structure in Canada", but not with the US structure's problems, while staying with 4 major parties will bring those problems.

I don't how a merger would work ideologically, nor could I see its benefit to the Canadian politcal structure as a whole.

While I agree that the NDP doesn't have a hope it its current state, and that it seriously needs to rethink its economic stance (or lack thereof) as well as its strategy in the media, a merger would not further its goals. It still has the potential to be a viable alternative on the left.

And remember, the Liberals aren't too far behind the Liberals is the seat count. A few bad decisions by Harper could bring the Liberals back into a minority, so all hope isn't lost yet.

If we ever allow this Harper-led government to have a clear majority we will be Americans.

I have no doubt about that.

I suspect our new ambassador ought to be watched like a hawk. This guy knows little other than money, money, and more money.

From a business perspective (and these guys know no other), it might be cheaper to deeply integrate this country into the mess to our south.

No need for fences, long customs line ups or complicated identification cards for the peons who fill up the border crossing spaces between the transport trucks.

That may be Thomas d'Aquino's dream. It certainly isn't mine, nor do I think, the dream of most Canadians.

Don't know if I could ever take out a Liberal membership card especially as long as there are people like Murdoch or Martin within the fold.

But then, Ryan's proposal, if acted upon might also have the positive effect of seeing the Martins and Murdochs of Canada heading into the Harper camp, where their true sympathies actually lay.

It might also make a more honest man of people like Paul Martin who claimed to be the exact model of his more leftie dad, but who acted as though he were in competition with Michael Wilson to dismantle our social safety net.

Remember it was the Liberal Finance Minister who began the big cuts in transfer payments that has resulted in the near death of universal public health care in Canada, to say nothing of the cuts to education that are also eroding an invaluable need.

G West wrote:

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

Yes, exactly.

Proportional Representation would be much better than a Liberal-NDP merger. Proportional Representation would tone-down policy extremes and keep Canada on an even keel.

If the Liberals merge with the NDP, a lot of former Liberals will join the Conservatives and steer it towards the middle. Then the Conservatives will become the new natural governing party since Quebec likes them and Ontario always wants to bend over backwards to please Quebec. The West will become politically irrelevant again.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the child care issue. A rational approach would be to compromise and give $1,200 per year in tax breaks to competent parents to make it more practical to raise their own kids, but create daycare spaces for the children of grossly incompetent parents who would be better off being raised by the state.

The mandatory daycare system envisioned by the NDP and Liberals is a revival of the native residential school concept - except for white kids this time. The NDP loves to take disastrous policies that have caused much grief, death and destruction in native society and apply the same policies to all Canadians. The federal Liberals seem to want to tag along.

Frank, everyone knows that the BC property market went sideways in the 1990's. Except maybe socialist mad scientists who don't live in the real world.

Bring it on!

How about Bob Rae or Steven Lewis as leaders. These are simply Liberals with a conscience!

If the NDP has to constantly struggle to get to a middle ground then that middle ground is probably too similar to the Liberals.

How about we call them Liberal Democrats?

However, I stll think a Sping election is a BIG possibility because of Klein dinking around again!

So, let's get ready!!

As much as Harper and his NCC U.S. lovin' buddies scare the hell out of me, a two party system in Canada scares me even more. Its not just a majority Con government I fear, never mind a minority led one... its a majority led Liberal government as well. Is there a party we can trust to run a majority? Imagine even, an NDP majority government for a moment. Is it what NDP voters really want? Long live the Bloc, and its a sad tell of Canadian politics that we should rightfully fear federal parties selling us out to the states to begin with.

What we have, the way I see it in Bay street, is a mix of two kinds of corporate elite. Canadian owned, or American owned and the elite that doesn't care, either way. As corporate elite as the Libs are, who's corps support them? Americans? Canadians? We certainly know who supports the Cons, and why. If we don't know by now... and we know that the corporate checks were 2 to 1 in favor of the Cons over the Libs in the last election. Canadian corps didn't give too generously, so...

There's a lot of predjudice towards rich people on this site. Truly. Its as though the rich and corporations are the entire problem to all our woes. But there's two kinds of rich. There's the kind that supports Canada, and there's the kind that supports the U.S. or doesn't care. And we'd better start defining who they are. Our "countrymen", rich or poor, have interests more common with the rest of us than we think.

Yes, that is the ticket!
And then let the parties actually do some negotiations instead of backstabbing

I get the impression that the NDP is still trying to get the bad taste out of it’s mouth after the last time they teamed up with the Liberals. The “New Liberal party” has a lot of old baggage to deal with before any other party would think of joining them on a long term basis. The NDP under Layton will team up with anyone depending on the subject and how much influence they can gain.

As far as the article goes, just another “The other side won, the sky is falling and the world is grinding to a halt” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Somehow I think Canada is far tougher than people give it credit for.

Cycling Commuter:

Let's keep out eyes on that target!

"Mergers" in the form of coalition? Yes! But after the election, in the formation of minority governments only.

Oh, I don't think there is any question that there is about to be big changes in this regard, in the politics of the nation, of which this Tyee article speaks-, but the greater likelihood is a merger between the major right elements of the Liberals, of which Emerson is but the tip of the iceberg, and the Neo-Conservatives. Which is not to say the NDP may not pick up some rump elements with "progressive illusions" from the Liberals, as in the Gordon Wilsonites out here in BC, but largely it will be a major gain for the extreme right. For what is destined to emerge here I think, and I've been saying it for a very long time, is a BC style Fedferal "Grand Coalition of The Right", centred around the Cons and Libs, as well as other more extreme religious and secular rightist factions.(Rump Reformers etc.)

Creeping fascism is the ruling class order of the period, which means strengthening the extreme pro-capitalist right, completing the deep integration with US Imperialism, and administering a coup de grace, assuming it is entirely possible, to what at least passes for "the left". (Which includes the trade union movement, in my analysis.)

And thus far, frankly, the ruling class agenda is succeeding all along the class/political spectrum line. And will for some time yet.

The only fly in the ointment that can interfere with the completion of this rightist agenda right now, again in just my analysis, is a major defeat for US imperialism and its "Coalition of The Bribed and Threatened" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is likely to lead to the defeat of Israel and the collapse of the US economy and its fall from grace as the sole "Super Power" in the world. For then the real implications of its place as the most indebted nation in the world suddenly catches up with it. All of which effects we ourselves are likely to be dragged along with, whining and crying about the unfairness of it all, and a sudden loss of face and faith in "The Empire in Decline" to which we, but especially our Corporate ruling class have so foolishly attached ourselves/themselves.

But, grant you, also in my mind, if and when this does occur, as I expect, a quite dramatically different page of history will begin to open up.

For so long as US Imperialism continues as it is, the dominant power in the world and able to rampage about and effectively threaten and control the world, we are stuck in current history, more or less as it is, with this country but one of its minor flunky vassals, creeping in the direction of fascism. For this situation or state of affairs to change, The Empire is really going to have to collapse first in all likelihood, as THE economic and political power in the world, and along with that generalized collapse, its' economic, ideological and political hold upon ourselves-, upon this country. Until then we are like a recording with a flaw in it, that keeps looping back upon and repeating its colonizedself, again, again and again.

And I think, based upon the gathering body of realpolitik and realeconomik evidence (Read much of Fait Lux's material.), we are on the cusp of all this about to happen-, and likely in a shorter time frame than "the ruling class planners" and the neo-classical economists are wont or prepared to believe.

Back to the dirt-bag emerson, once a liberal now a tory, always an a$$whole.
Just read in the straight about his "accomplishments" and the "good" things he's already done for BC. What a disgrace!!!
I'm infuriated, absolutely f'n infuriated. The more I read about this hack the more sick I felt and the less suprised I was that he pulled that cynical, self-serving stunt.
It also speaks volumes about harper and gordo that they hold this @#$% in such high esteem.
Man if this is the best we have we're in big f'n trouble.
To the good people protesting his office and pressuring him to step-down DON'T GIVE UP!!
This garbage has to be taken out like the rest of the trash.
I suggest you all read the article in today's Georgia Straight and learn more about emer$on, gordo, the forest industry...the whole stinking story.

Coyote:
I'm in total agreement. All of this smoke over Iran is nothing more than a screen for the U.S. to go to war with Irans proposition to trade oil in a currency that isn't American. The U.S. relies heavily on this to support their "economy". The U.S. plan to control the entire middle east, maybe not even so much for the U.S. but for those who own its currency, should have been well known by now. Afganistan's bordering of Iran, fighting Iran on three fronts, Iraq, Afganistan and the sea... how many years away is Iran from enriching its own uranium? How many days is Iran away from switching over the currency of which it trades its oil?

Americans might be dumbly controlled by its corporate controlled media, but Canadians are slightly more fortunate. The Cons plans to increase our military by 33,000 soldiers, and air lift support for armoured vehichles should suggest how controlled by the U.S. the Cons really are, and force us to rethink how controlled the Libs really are. Martin too, wanted to increase military spending but not like this. We talk about how U.S. controlled Chretien was, but one needs only to look at how much money our parties want to spend to support another Bush war to see who's a true U.S. puppet and who's not.

The U.S. empire will try to use the UN's consent to move into IRAN and if they don't succeed, they will try to form a coalition, just as they have in the past. We talk of there being no differences between the Libs compared to the Cons... internationally speaking, the differences are tremendous, reminding us of just how high the stakes can truly be besides selling our resources in the the name of "business as usual".

Jesterjogger: is the story online? Can you provide a link?

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=16342

Try this link brain.
If it doesnt work just got straight.com or enter georgia straight in a search engine.
The story, by Murray Dobbin, is in the commentary section.
I'm glad I took a heart pill before I read it too. Anyone else with heart problems I suggest you do likewise!!!!

Jesterjogger:
Found it on a search, quite the story. A real head shaker. When he was CEO with Canfor, Emerson and his CFO buddy issued over 8 million shares were issued to him and his director's with a sprinkle going into lower management. (Emerson got lions share). The average sell price has been around 12 bucks a share since, floating between 7 to 18 dollars since 99'. Emerson and directors walked away with close to 100 million worth of stock issues from 99 to 2001, alone. Remind you of Enron?

brain
I am sorry, the logic that the US will invade Iran is just so flawed. Iran would make the taking and holding of Iraq look a Sunday stroll.

The terrain is against you, the size of the country is against you, the population will resist strongly anyone who invades, it is also to close to Russia for them not to be concerned. The US could invade briefly southern Iran, but could not hold it. The US barely has the troops to hold onto the commitments they have now.

If you wish to argue that their might be military action taken against Iran, then I would agree that is a possibility, but an invasion is a realistic option.

Also in regards to Canada, at present levels as I already mentioned previously we are stretching ourselves to the limit just maintaining 2,000 people overseas.

Canada has been like a old movie actress living off of faded glory, both in the military field and Foreign Aid. I understand that you disagree with the deployment to Afghanistan or at least the structure and purpose. But even if you wanted Canada to take part in more UN traditional peacekeeping operations, you will have to beef up the army to do so.

The Liberals ran our Foreign Aid programs into the dirt and we give a pittance compared to what we did. Now Canada has become more or less irrelevant on the world stage. If you want us to have a major effect as a independent it is going to be costly. I briefly scanned the NDP’s foreign policy sometime ago and can only remember that it was long on fluff and short on details. Perhaps they have a better policy out now?

Thanks for this link, jesterjogger. I have perused it quickly, and now will certainly read it fully. What is occurring here is extremely important for what we have to here called "democracy", and for the nation-, and Emerson has asserted himself as a major player in the "great unfolding" of it. The entire Liberal Party needs to be closely watched from here on.

And, yes, we are agreed on many points Brain, especially on this issue of the Middle East.

I have a somewhat less "sympathetic/optimistic" view of the Liberals vis a vis the Cons than yourself, or "the wealthy" class, but that is not so important here I think.

Regardless of this minor degree to which the Liberals have seemed to differ from the Conservatives on relations with the US, always regardless of their "words" in the end bending to Washington's will much as Conservatives, clearly even that is about to change-, assuming what I think is unfolding here, a Grand Alliance of The Right, in fact does.

Odd as it may seem, much in that regard though, I think, depends on how quickly everything unravels for The Empire in the Middle East. (Gwynn Dyer, the much respected Canadian military analyst, much quoted now-a-days even in US intellectual circles, is of the view that things will continue along more or less as they are in Iraq and the larger Middle East, for about two more years. I do not disagree with this assessment.)

But if the rumours are true of a formal "nationalist" alliance having been struck between the "largely but not exclusively" Sunni and secular Insurgency and the militias of the Shia cleric Muqtada el Sadr are true, and that they are already making their move, first to control the separatist Sistani religious Shia as a prelude to jointly taking on the US forces, then all bets are off on that two year time frame. Things could suddenly unravel much more quickly for The Empire, I think. (Rumours of the agreement suggest that once the US is defeated, (And Sadr has actually publicly stated he has such an agreement with the Insurgency.) then they, the Insurgency and Mahdi Army of Sadr will jointly punish the Kurds for their collaboration with the US, under the banner "Kurdistan is Iraqi".

All of which, depending upon how it unfolds in fact, and what its geopolitical and global economic implications similarly turn out in fact to be, could much change even the whole complexion and heretofore emerging neocon tenor of Canadian politics, to say nothing of our US dependant colonial economy.

The best laid plans of mice and men...

Kind of makes you wonder why he got involved in politics. He's already scammed millions and millions of dollars.
Is he on a crusade to rape the rest of our wilderness. Maybe he has a deep hatred for all living things. Maybe he hasn't waterskied behind enough yachts.
These are the people who are running/ruining our planet.
They rape our environment to line their own pockets and then support fascist governments that demonize the poor and unemployed.
Then they smuggly stroll through places like whistler displaying their stolen wealth for all to envy. yeah right!
Emerson, harper, gordo, bush etc. ad infinitum
I know that you invented religion to subjigate the masses but if there is a hell (other than the one you've created for on earth)I hope your eternal punishment is as ironic as it is agonizing.

First of all, I think the only electoral reform that Stephen Harper is interested in is bringing in an elected Senate. And that's not going to be much help to any agenda other than the provicial one.

As to the question of troops in Iran. Can't imagine why the US would commit there. The IDF is the party that's most likely to act in any scenario where force is needed and they'll do that by way of an airstrike - just as they did in the case of Iraq. Further, I think the US has learned that going into these situations on the ground is a bad idea - if they've learned nothing else from their Iraq adventure - they'll take a much more surgical airborne approach in the future, in my opinion.

But hey, that's not really the issue here, is it?

Well asking you constituents if switching parties is warranted also appears to be frowned upon in the Yukon NDP

http://www.whitehorsestar.com/auth.php?r=41666

Coyote
Sistinni and Sadar also represent to very diverse views that have been at odds in Iraq for a long time, Sistinni represents the belief that Immans are to guide people in religious matters and Sadar represents the side that believe that the Immans have the authority to run day to day matters, this is inline with the views of the Iranian leaders who appear to be backing Sadar or at the very least using him to further their own agenda.

Don't think Ryan is suggesting "switching" parties is he? The main point here is, it seems to me at least, what do people who don't drink the conservative Koolade think ought to be the appropriate response to what may be an effective right-wing campaign to garner an electoral majority that has the potential to retain power for an extended period of time?
Simple stuff basically.

Have you looked at the latest polls on Harper’s popularity?

I don't disagree with those who say that Liberal governments in the past haven't been very different from the kind of government the country had under conservative leadership. But I think Ryan is suggesting that things are changing and it's necessary to look at other ways to respond if you are a 'progressive' voter - for lack of a better term. He may be correct or, this may just be business as usual under another name. Clearly that’s what the discussion is all about, in my view.

Colin,

There is no reason Canada, with its less than 1% share of the world's population, should want to be seen as a major international player. What will it do for the poor in this country by getting mentioned in the National Review as a "player"?

Nothing, its ego-stroking for some Canadians, that's all. We don't see Sweden trying to recapture the glory from the time of Breitenfeld which came to an end at Poltava. Canada's time as a military power is past. We would have required the birth rate of ten Kenyas to maintain the status we enjoyed in 1945.

Trying to recapture that at the expense of our own people would truly be worth of being called a fading movie actress trying to recature past glory.

If Canada wants to be seen as a player it could start by owning its own economy. Any visitor to Vancouver would look at all the US brands and think they're in Portland or Seattle if someone didn't tell them.

Frank
There is nothing wrong in not being a “big player” on the International scene, but people seem to want us to have a impact on the world stage, just as long as it does not cost anything.

And there is the nub of it, Frank. It's the part Colin, whom I certainly don't think is a dummy, nonetheless does not get.

I always love to read your stuff, Frank, even when I disagree. Which is not very bloody often.

The point is not at all, as Colin seems to wannabe, being a major international player. I will settle for being master in my own house, and the security and wellbeing of my own people. And bristling just enough militarily to discourage all outside covetousness.

A good day you, brother.

Interesting article. I think that it makes quite a strong point and a necessary one. The national news media seems to have trouble with math. The NDP conveniently has the same dfifficulty but it is to their perceptual advantage. The NDP does not have the balance of power in this parliament, the Bloc does and as I stated after the election, as as the bloc stated, it is to their advantage band the advantage of their constitutency (only quebec) to have the harper conservatives in power as although political leanings may be different the one area that they agree on, devolution of power to the provinces, is sufficient to hold the bloc's support for a very long time, so we may very well have PM Harper for a long time. If the Libs and the NDP keep fighting for the left, the centre, and even the moderate right, then they aned the country will find that there is very little left to fight over as the far right elements will (reform alliance types), under a moderate exterior, enact their program and ourgov't will go the way of the environment, childcare, wp health & safety, seniors health etc. in BC.

Hurry up and get the coalition of reason going!

What we need is electoral reform so we start seeing the NDP taking 18-20% of the seats in Canada as per their voter share. If that was the case, we'd likely have a progressive majority of Liberals and NDP with a small contigent of separatists, Cons and Greens.

I'd be happy with that mix.

moodyguy, the NDP and the Libs aren't fighting over the same ground.

The Libs are not trying to appeal to the left at all. What have they done in the past 12 years of governing that would create that picture? I can think only of Chretien's Non on Iraq. Not much of a resume.

NDP and Liberal policies do not get along with each other. A merger would mean the end of one or the other party. Because a merged party means I would have to support a party that is 100% behind NAFTA and believes in little of what I believe in. I would find that utterly ridiculous.

In an election campaign who would the merged party appeal to? The left? Why? WIth no NDP on their flank what would be the point of that? Left-wing voters would have no alternative but to support the lesser of two evils, in this case the merged NDP-Libs and the party would know it. So their policies would be designed to appeal to the voters who would vote Conservative. Which is exactly what you get in two party states like the US, a fight over the swing voters.

A merged party would mean a dramatic shift in the Cdn political sphere to the right. That would be worse than the Cons being elected once in awhile.

So within 10 minutes of a merger a new left wing party would have to be created. Otherwise we would have no voice at all.

Thanks Coyote!

Coyote
I do get it, we just disagree, which is fine.

Frank
If the NDP and Liberals merged, do you think it would be enough to give the Greens the chance to get elected and fill the “left gap”? I think this election showed that your comment about appealing to different voters is correct, the Liberals benefited once from drawing them in but really offered nothing to continue the alliance. I doubt that the Liberals can offer enough to entice the NDP into long term cooperation. Only Harper is in a position to push them hard enough to do so and I don’t think he will be that stupid. The next while will be a divide and conquer session in the house.

Luckily in my riding we don’t have to worry about the “left gap” as we have our very own Marxist-Leninist candidate ready to step up at any moment.

funny to see the same folks who argue so passionately for the Greens to fold up their tent and merge with the NDP provincially, are equally passionate about not folding up the NDP tent to join the Liberals federally, even though the argument for merging is exactly the same in both cases

not surprising, just funny

Deja, But I don't argue that the Greens should pack up their tent. I simply argue that the NDP has been stronger on the environment than the Greens and so people who support the Greens on that issue should be voting NDP and not on the basis of the word "Green".

If you're a libertarian of course you should be supporting the Greens and not the NDP.

Colin

I don't think the Greens qualify as a left wing party except on the environment.

Yes, it was nice seeing Martin't sudden conversion being ignored by most of the left. He had 12 years to put in place left-wing policies but somehow he only saw the light on election eve. Funny that.

No they can't unless they elect a new leader with a track record of actually being left-wing on many issues. Ignatieff, Manley, McKenna etc are not going to do it.

Harper's got the Bloc, he can ignore the left completely. If he wants to make points he has to move on electoral reform and I'm starting to think that won't happen. Instead he can push for a devolution of power to the provinces and the Bloc will back him all the way.

GWest,

Agreed. There's no better way to buy peace with the provinces, especially Quebec, than giving them tax points. Very few provincial premiers will ever do what's best for the country.

I think the Libs will be the last party to ever back electoral reform. They benefit more from the present system than anyone else and I just can't see them giving up all those future majority governments. In fact its the NDP and Cons who should be natural allies on electoral reform while the Bloc would side with the Libs.

No argument here.

Yep

This would be a move into NDP territory and I can't see the Libs under Ignatieff or Manley etc doing it. Depending on the who they elect as their new leader I think its more likely they'll go the other way and fight the Cons over the small-c fiscal, middle of the road small-l social voters while offering NDP swing voters a few tidbits to lure just a few percent of them into their camp which could make the difference in some close ridings in major cities.

Indeed, sir. We disagree. :-)

I find it interesting that the author is upset by the fact the Conservatives became the government with only 36% of the vote. No concern though when the Liberals got majorities with slightly more than 40%. The anti americanism displayed here is misplaced. Put simply, the Americans are the good guys. The use of the phrase American Empire is both shallow and stupid. American forces are in several countries other than Iraq and if memory serves correct, their largest group is in Germany. If the US had an empire wouldn't it be logical that the country where they have the largest concentration of forces would be a country that follows the US lead? Did Germany? There is no country on this earth that has done more for humankind than the USA in terms of freeing people (think most of Europe, Asia etc). Are they perfect? No, but I can't think of any other country whose side I would want to be on when the chips are down. Please try to keep in mind that we are in a war here and the enemy would not hesitate to kill us because, after all, we are infidels. Canada could do much worse than to emulate the USA more and, hopefully, Canadians are finally coming to their senses and seeing that the socialist utopia that "progressives" promote is nothing more than a recipe for enslavement of Canadians by government.

There's a big difference between Franklin Roosevelts america and george bush's america.
(atleast I hope)
Anyhow americans are mostly our friends but their country has been hijacked by a bunch of scoundrels i.e. the corruplicans
karl rove, cheney, bush, rumsfeld, pearle, wolfowitz-they're traitors to the very idea of what america is supposed to be. They should be hung like the war criminals they are.

Well they certainly liberated a lot of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and later 3,000,000 Vietnamese...

As for Europe...The Nazi Werhmacht was defeated at Stalingrad.. Its coming to light their losses estimated at 26,000,000 are probably conservative...then add on Stalins handiwork.

Canadians were fighting in Europe long before the Yanks got into it. Ever hear of Jack Pickersgill....look him up.

Bob the Cat.
Are you suggesting it would have been better for the Americans to invade Japan via the sea at an estimated cost of 200,000 American lives? Any American president would, quite rightly, be impeached if he took that route. As well, a recent article I read calculated that 400,000 people were dying per month at the hands of Japanese occupiers. Think here the rape of Nanking, the Philipines etc. But then you probably believe the US started the war. Again, the Americans are the good guys and the original peaceniks. After all, they refused to get involved in either WWI or WWII and spend their youth for stupid European wars. Yet the Europeans are held in such high regard as more sophisticated and culturally sensitive than GW and the rest. In a word, crap and you don't have to look farther than last years riots in France to see this factoid. Europe was responsible for communism, facism and nazism in the last century at a cost of probably 200 million lives. Yeah, let's continue to emulate the Europeans with their double digit unemployment, ethnic strife etc.
Jesterjogger: Too silly for words. Better put your tinfoil hat back on so we can't read your thoughts.

oilbertan

Japan was finished when they dropped the bombs...the use of nuclear weapons on civilians was a message to the Soviet Union..and the rest of the world.

hey cowboy wanna meet and discuss this in person?
yeah that's what I thought you'd say. chickenhawk chickensh!t
You make ashamed to be an albertan!

Frank:
You seem to think much of what I've said makes at least 'some' sense. What would convince you that Ryan's proposal is worth considering more fully?
Don't really think its necessary for anybody to fold their tent - what's wrong with just making it bigger, up to and including the Greens for that matter. Maybe there are enough areas of common or shared interest in the NDP and the Liberal platform to form a coalition.

I just can't see any liklihood of real electoral reform coming from Harper, other than, as mentioned, moving to an elected Senate or, as Preston Manning wanted to call it - a house of the provinces - can you?

THere's no doubt the right-wing libs would head for Harper, but that's where they belong anyway.

I think Ryan makes an interesting case. By the way, did anyone hear the announcement that the Federal ethics commissioner will be investigating whether or not Harper's solicitation of Emerson violated the ethics rules?

Oilbertan:
It still doesn't mean todays lion won't be tomarrows goat. GW's been a war hawk ever since he took office. The U.S. sure did make a lot of money off the first 2 world wars, did they not? Peaceful, sure. It didn't stop them from charging for the rope required by the hangman.

Coyote:
Rich sympathizer... eeesh... I wouldn't exactly say that. There is certainly no shortage of rich fat white biggots who are only in it "for the money". But not everyone with a fat bank account is "in it for the money". Sometimes, its just the effect of positive things we do. You know, someone succeeds in a craft and a bunch of people throw money at its success. Is the guy or gal suddenly corrupt because they pay taxes? Its not always quite that cut and dried, just as it is that we have CEO's out there that are patriots and care about this country. (even though they're highly likely a tiny minority in this country, I hear yah.) We ought to have some kind of fair trial first, don't you think, before we take 'em all out back and hang 'em high? Seems like the right thing to do. :-)

Part of my point lies in encouraging rich folk that being a philanthropist (someone who gives shitloads to humanitarian causes) isn't so bad, actually kind of hip. Why, if rich folk spent money on social causes for a change, they might not have to, you know, pay for it! :-)

As for the Libs, I'm not high on 'em either. Heck, they could have done more in social areas, especially when Martin took over. Thinking back, they should have worked with the NDP more and lots has been said about Pauls large ego... but I'm not high on Jack's either. And anyone who reads the tyee knows I detest the Cons outright with pretty much everything they do and aim for, so where do I go? Back to the best candidate in my riding and if the person happens to be a Con, its their tough luck. I can't support anyone who supports or is supported by an NCC led U.S. sellout.

It's the same old question. "Can you do any better?" My answer is "YUP". Too bad I'm not electable. But if my craft picks up and people suddenly throw millions at me so I can be despised for being rich, I'd go for it.
;-)

Colin:
I'm well aware of IRAN's 78 million people, mostly young and religious, with 40 billion to spend on toys. I believe they are more built up than Iraq ever was as well. And while I am in full agreement that it will be no cakewalk, GW has 3 years to try (maybe not even, if congress turns democrat this fall) and the big issue the way I see it is oil being traded in currency other than U.S. dollars. In other words, its all about money and control of resources and the precidence it sends if someone falls out of line. The level of military invasion will center around this issue behind the scenes, along with negotiations with countries that rely on Iran's oil and gas.

Is IRAN vulnerable to airstrikes? I believe so. If GW senior believes so... the rhetoric with Iraq and Iran is eerily the same, the motive is there, the history is there, and its not hard for me to think that GW was after Iran all along. They've wanted to control the middle east this entire time. Its a matter of historical record.

G West:
Yah. I caught it.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/03/emerson_060303.html

Harper will definitely push for triple E senate reform. Reminds me of Fortiers appointment to the senate and then the cabinet, all in the same day. Presently, there are 66 liberal senators, 24 or 26 Conservatives (something like that), and the rest are vacant or being filled to comprise 105. So naturally, Harper wants an elected senate to break the Liberal hold of our current senate.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/02/mcguinty-senate-060302.html

And, he wants to give the senate more powers as there are less numbers for the NCC to pay off. More division within the two houses. A weaker central power. Its been the NCC game plan all along. Triple E from the reforms is nothing new. Weaken Canada's federal powers to facilitate the U.S. takeover of our country, either in the markets or government, or ideology, or media, or all four. And my take on 3/4's of the country not having heard of the National Citizens Coalition? Its more like 9 out of 10.

Brain
Man you are prolix at times dude. Not that you're the only one. What do you think of Ryan's piece?
All the other stuff you've covered at least 3 times just this week!
Don't mean that to be overly critical, I'd just like to see you move on a bit and discuss something a little different. Most everyone knows what Harper has planned - the question is how do you stop him!

Regarding Iran, Has anybody seen the Color of Paradise? Nice movie and nice scenery if you don't mind subtitles.

GWest,

I hate to sound intransigent but nothing. The only way Libs and NDP can work together is on an issue by issue basis. The Libs had that opportunity in the last gov't and they felt the NDP were blackmailing them and fought every step of the way. So much for working together.

Pro-rep could produce more stable minority governments where the parties would be forced to work together more since appealing to the electorate will probably not change the last results.

Yes, a coalition could be formed but it would be the result of hard bargaining. We on the left have to see real gains if we're going to support a Lib gov't.

I had hopes but I appear to be wrong. I was hoping there would be enough Reform left in the Cons to work with the NDP on electoral reform but clearly Harper is more interested in reducing the power of the federal gov't which no doubt over time will also make us less nationalistic and open to things like deep integration.

This could get interesting:

How depressing that the fear of one political party and the splitting of votes causes pressure for opposing forces to amalgamate. Duverger's Law in action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Please, let's go to a more rational voting system like the BC-STV which gives voters a chance to vote for the highest ranked candidates rather than the anomalies that FTPT gives us. Voters are less likely to feel pressured to hold their nose and vote strategically rather than for their first choice.

My point being that short of the ending of the Neocon period and all that which creates and underpins it, being which short of the collapse of real US influence on this country and in the larger world, I don't think either Harper, or more particularly what he represents, can be stopped. Even given the collapse of the Liberals, and the larger element of the Liberal Party, especially the ruling class "money" end of it going over to the Conservatives, and the rump small "l" liberal element finding its way into the increasingly anaemic NDP, will really only strengthen the underlying rightward drifting dynamic anyway-, to which Frank refers as well if I read him correctly.

It all manifests in fact, the rightward drift of politics generally within the underlying economic and political ruling class system that has been going on for the last twenty to thirty years. Now it may annoy you to hear that said, but doesn't change the reality one jit. It's immediately obvious at the side of the Liberal split that moves to the Conservatives of course, even NDP Social Democrats can get that part of it. But the other aspect of the same reality which right wing New Democrats can't or won't get, or are as likely frightened to see, whatever, is that ever since the creation of the New Democratic Party out of the old CCF, they have been moving ever more steadily rightward themselves, more and more coveting the political positions of the Liberal Party-, and never more obvious than in their own responses to the new Neocon Period-, becoming like all the other parties in "the system", just another one of the parties of capitalism. (Ditto Greens.)

And this ambition finally reaches the stage of the compellingly obvious and its fulfillment, in the now reaching, hopefully, desparately for a piece of the Liberal party, like a piece of flotsam from that sinking ship, at which it grasps and to which it hopes to keep itself from further drowning in the sea of irrelevance. Hence it merges into the end time of its rightward drift, and where it had hoped to be the New Liberal Party, becomes merely this cobbled together non-entity that is neither fish nor fowl, but a political "it".

Continued next post...

From the previous post...

The times, in my view, though it knows it not yet, is in desparate need of a new, and I say, more radicalized and socially transformative capable left. Only, again returning to the central theme of my analysis, I don't think this is likely to occur until all of the above either; (a.) there is a collapse of US economic and political influence /hegemony over the country, and (b.) until in the collapse or decline into invalidism of the economy that comes out of that, the capacity of the ruling class for insight itself into what is happening and how to respond to it, short of fascism, sows the seeds of some desparation amongst common folk, fatally undermining their confidence in "the system", and finally (c.) in the casting about of that time, there is a greater hostility to everything and everyone "right", and a greater receptiveness and willingness to consider more radicalized left wing analyses and solutions that lead away from the ruling class system of capitalism.

And again, though you do not want to hear it, and consider it getting off your attempt to control "the topic", and keep it on the chosen path of current straight and narrow, "legalistic" political maneuvering, in the parliamentary tradition, there is a view that the trigger for all this, which suddenly ceases the rightward drift, is a major military defeat for US Imperialism in the Middle East, and all that flows in the aftermath of that.

Now that may not fit in the "tidy bundle" of "parliamentary politics and maneuvering", but it is an attempt at least, at a more or less complete and integrated analysis of evolving influences into which we are integrated and no less subject in the current world. And if you think all those elements are not part of, likely destined to have a profound impact on the politics of the current period, even within this country, even now wielding an influence on this rightward drift, out of ourselves being increasing complicit in Afghanistan, and preparing ourselves for greater military involvement with the ambitions of The Empire, and deeply integrated with them economically, then I suggest you are too focused on the trees and fail to see the entire forest.

Sorry, should have posted the source of that quote above, here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060303/ca_pr_on_na/ethics_emerson

Regarding deeper integration between Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico. Did everyone see Don Newman's "Politics" today? Ernesto Luis Derbez, Mexico's Foreign Secretary, outlines the objectives of the three heads of state in a meeting to be held at the end of the month in Cancun. Apparently, the 3 nations will discuss "the homogenization of norms, rules between the 3 countries" This will not only be in terms of finacial sectors but combining energy,labour, and technical resources so that "collectively we can ward off the Asian Threat, or penetration from other sources, other places". "It is important right now to demand and define an institutionalization of the process of intergration between Canada, Mexico & the United States. Once you have that institutionalization, then it will be difficult for anyone to keep moving away from that." When asked what would happen if a change in leadership that leaned futher left came to power in Mexico in the future, he said that what will be important, regardless of that, is -lets keep the institionalization process moving forward "because it will be more difficult for anyone to make any changes. That is why Cancun is so important." Gulp!

No doubt Michael Wilson will be taking notes at the meeting!

Just wanted to add more words of wisdumb to what my prolific friend (who resides in a cranium) has typed thus far.
George W Bush: Bad..he's a real bad man.
Stephen Harper: Bad..he wants us to lick the boots of Bush.
NCC: Well I just found out about it, but I am willing to offer up many old links from 1997 and before. See, I like to go ahead and type whatever about whatever, offer up sadly ill-informed half-formed thoughts backed up by almost no reading or research. That way everyone else posting here can see what a brain I am.
Iran: Well, heck that's an easy one. It's similar to Iraq, but it has an "N" at the end. Both countries will soon be changing their names to Irash anyhow.
The big issue the way I see it is whatever happens to be playing on my TV on CNN or Fox today. Sure, it's a vast pile of steaming and stinking propaganda, but I like to be informed in a fair and balanced way. Hey, it's what I do!

Now ya gotta hand it to my buddy grey matter for that little bit of erudite banter! I mean sure, it's probably unlikely that the craft of greeting folk at the front of WalMart will garner him a multi-million dollar salary, but hey! It's what he does!
If todays lion becomes tomorrow's goat then turns into a hawk, I'm thinking the lamb will lay down in the middle of the street. Right in front of my friend Brain's car. You guessed it - a Smart car! And that could get messy. But hey! It's what I do!

See - my bud brain was kind enough to define philathropist for all of us low-brow types here. Who'd a thunk it meant people who give away shit? Huh? Sure, money would be better for "humanitarian causes" (whatever tf those are..) but hey, at least loads of shit is better than nothing! (Insert little smiley here using cutsie colon parenthesis.)

I base this on my far-flung research (google) and experience regarding tactical preparedness of Iran's military. And Fox news.

Well, okay, maybe my close personal cranium resident buddy is lying a bit there. It IS hard for him to think. But he can parrot well, and plagiarise with the best of em. Ideas, mores, thoughtful discourse, he can copy and paste all of that. Just be patient with Brain. I am positive somewhere amid thousands and thousands of unoriginal, fluffy, cliche-addled, platitude-rich directionless typed words there will be (like the million chimps on typewriters) be a phrase of veracity. And the year after that I'm hoping for a full sentence. Like this:
<°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))>< <°)))><

Why? From the Dakotas to Hawaii to Okinawa to Peurto Rico its conquered land and the locals weren't crazy about becoming Americans.

Oh this is a good one. Please list the countries that America "freed"?

France will be the obvious first choice but I wanna know where you go after that and don't say Belgium, Holland or Italy since it was the Commonwealth that did most of the fighting there. So I'm curious how France qualifies as most of Europe.

We'll ignore 1914 where the US skipped all but the last couple of months of a 4 year long kerfuffle to save Europe from the Kaiser.

In Asia you must be referring to South Korea but I'm hard pressed to remember what other country American forces wrested from tyranny and I have trouble equating that republic with the statement "most of Asia".

We're in a war? Which country declared war on us? Shouldn't we be mobilizing? Has CKNW started telling us where the ration stations will be set up? I missed that. If you mean that guy Bin Laden, well, countries don't have wars with individuals or gangs and frankly I'm more concerned with gangs in Regina than I am about one in the Middle East. In fact I'm more concerned about American "script kiddies".

America owns us. They own our resource extraction companies and the transportation system to move those resources. So I would say not only do we emulate the USA we have become an economic colony of the USA, freely unlike Hawaii and yet without a say in their politics. We have done this without any socialist governments at the federal level although I realize the Liberals are considered socialist when you share a political compass with Ghengis Khan.

So thank you to the right-wing Libs and Cons for saving us from enslavement by our gov't so that we could instead be enslaved by a foreign one. Well done.

Brain
The US could invade Iran, the southern portions lend themselves to large mobile armoured formations, which the US excels at. However they do not have the troops to hold any territory, so the exercise becomes pointless. The US appetite for invading and holding ground has been quenched, not to mention that Sadar and his followers would come to Iran’s defence.

Also the majority of the Iranians want a better relationship with the West, the West knows it and so does the Iranian leadership, so both sides are walking a tightrope. There is no support within the US to invade Iran, it would be the end of Bush, perhaps Syria, but that would cost him what support he has in the ME.

The Iranians are vulnerable to attacks on their oil infrastructure and other key points, the US could do serious damage to what is left of the Iranian airforce and key military Installations with less risk than an invasion, but still costly politically.

Personally I think that when the Iranians get the bomb, which they fully intend to, the political leadership will find themselves in a fix, the bomb will reduce the threat of anyone attacking them and remove the “external enemy” argument that they use against their population and hopefully give an opportunity for another group of moderate to gain power.

Meanwhile back in Canada, Layton will have done another ad, where he looks intently into the camera with his hands outstretched and says: “Come to us, where it is warm, loving and safe, there is no Martin here in the NDP”

G West:

"Most everyone knows what Harper has planned - the question is how do you stop him!"

"And my take on 3/4's of the country not having heard of the National Citizens Coalition? Its more like 9 out of 10."

Educate the public. If the public knew Harpers history with them, the Cons would be done. Question is whether or not the media would touch this kind of journalism, even letters from the public in papers. Thats why I keep going back to it. Honestly, it would make an excellent book.

The Pain:
You changed your name for little ol' me?

This brain tag sure does flush out the "intellectually superior ones", do they not?
I hate to break it you, but its not a popularity contest, or superiority contest or anything else you can't seem to get over. You fit a stalker profile real well. And those fish at the bottom... quite a tell. Seen it before.

typical crock of shite from the tyee. would i ever love to see this attempted though. talk about some ugly politics.

Colin, And two years from now Harper will sit with a silly grin pretending to drink coffee telling a young female Conservative that just because 90% of the health care system is in private hands does not mean medicare is dead, it just means the private system is more alive.

progressive bloggers are going nuts with Harper's rejection of Sharpio on other links. Expect alot more trolls here.

Colin
Don't you think the IDF will take out the Iranian nuclear installations before they ever build a bomb?
I can't figure out, at the same time, what this has to do with the subject under consideration.

John Ryan wrote:

This is the most telling part of the piece, it recognizes that the Liberals have not been cohesive; one could argue that they have become less and less cohesive with no major policy convention since John Turner was whacked by a returning Cretien.

The divide in the Liberal party between Cretienites and Martinites is deep, deeper than most are willing to admit. It is this divide that brought home the defeat in the last election, and unless an open policy convention is held BEFORE any leadership contest I suspect that the divide will continue.

Were either side, Cretenite or Martinite, to put forward such a proposal to see the Liberal party 'merge' with the NDP, the other side would use this as a lever to oust the one doing the merging. The Machiavellian urges of both camps are raging right now.

Moreover the current view of the PQ arm of the Liberal party is that the next leader had better be from 'la belle province' or there will be hell to pay. Which part of the NDP is represented in PQ? Their closest comparison on 'policy' is the Bloc.

From the other side we see the NDPers whom would never dream of seeing their CCF roots swallowed whole by the BIG BUSINESS NATURAL GOVERNING Party of the Liberals. NO WAY. The hard-line socialists would not see their dream drowned in a sea of red. Like the BQ from the Conservatives in the 80's or the Reformers later they, the socialists elements of the NDP would leave, in droves. They would re-form the CCF and have-at the 'upstarts' in the attempt at centralization. If the Liberals thought getting volunteers was hard at times in the last election they would have to use press gangs to get any 'volunteers' with a left-leaning re-formed CCF holding the name lists of the most energetic and fighting mad volunteers. When it comes to beating the street most of the NDP has that gig under control, and were the Liberals to try and pilfer that machinery they would find a scorched earth, with the best workers already gone and putting up a silent wall should such a situation come about.

Then there is the problem of any leader of the NDP following such a course. Smilin' Jack took a pretty hot time after his tacit approval of the minority Liberal budget. I cannot imagine the volcanic response any leader of the NDP would get from the rank and file were such a nutty scheme as actually allowing the NDP to be consumed by the Liberals.

John Ryan appears to be hopeful, perhaps pleading with others to see the potential mertis of his idea. In reality, I suspect, he already knows that it cannot come to pass.

G West:
The story in itself is trying to push alarm buttons, or assumes readers know the real dangers. In the first paragraph alone,

I'm doubtful Canada is fully aware. I'll use Elliot for a gauge on that one. The whole article is truly worth a second read. The conclusions are sound and breathe "minority Lib, NDP balanced power", once again in a quick election.

Its reason enough to talk about Republican insanity, cause we're getting a good dose of it in Canada now, and its not likely to go away until the Cons try to pass something. The best and worst case scenerio depending on the results, is that if nothing passes through the commons in the spring, I can see Harper calling for a snap election with Martin back to lead before there is a chance to replace him, something that no one in this country wants.

But Colin has mentioned something that gives me hope. U.S. support for Bush just isn't there. Its going to take more than tears for dead soldiers to bring his popularity up.

Colin:
I'm trying to think of why myself. My feeling is that its way to costly for the U.S. to try it. Heck, Iraq was to costly. But I look at it from a recently Bush proposed budgetary view, and where its coming from. Currency and control of resources is the motive. The empire doesn't have to invade or even occupy. If its about the control of the currency oil trades in and what the U.S. thinks it can do to get their way...

Your right about support waning for Bush. CBS put out a poll that Bush was at 34% popularity yesterday. The other majors followed suit with between 36 and 39%. There's more talk of empeachment now... I personally don't see how he can pull it off. But there's little doubt in my mind that GW senior/junior wants to.

GW would need an elected republican congress, and a publicity diversion like 911. Thing is, this is George seniors vision. Junior is to slow for something like this, and its hard to say what floats through the mind of GW senior other than oncoming senility, but its hard to say whether their leaders are even in control of their own nation now. We've seen corporations take control more and more. And the U.S only owns half of their own dollars now. This war machine is becoming more and moreso, a mercenary for hire for other nations and corporate interests and meanwhile, their on the edge of a cliff teetering for a fall.

Yah, that NDP ad...

Gwest, well The IDF would like to, but I think the Iranian learned that lesson after watching the Iraqi program go up in smoke. This conversation grew out of the Bush will invade Iran next comment further up the post, I tried to end my last post on a Canadian note.

Murdock
I think your description is quite close to the truth, it would be interesting if CCf was reborn, it would certainly bring a tear to my dad’s eye, he was asked to run by Tommy Douglas.

Brain
I do agree that the US will try something, but I not sure what it will be, I expect they are already planning for a nuke armed Iran in the near future. If giving them a nuke would mean they would stop meddling in the rest of the region I would say it’s a fair trade, problem with revolutions is that they always need to be exported or the locals starting thinking it’s time to change the government.

Interesting though Iran only has oil for the next 20 years or so, while most of Iraq’s reserves haven’t even been fully explored yet, so as Iran star fades, Iraq’s will be rising.

murdock,

Damn right

Colin,

That's true. I can think of one country that had a little revolution in 1776 that has been looking for a bad guy over some far away hill even to this day.

Actually Murdock, though I disagree with your conclusion that this "merger" is not going to happen, much of the rest of what you write is pretty much correct, I think. (Though certainly this merger is not going to occur in the way John Ryan and the NDP would particularly like to see it in their wet dream fantasy.)

I wouldn't want to try and predict the particulars of precisely how it will evolve, but there is clearly the smell of Liberal blood exciting the nostrils and saliva flow of the political carnivours-, right wing faction NDP and Conservatives. (Right wing faction NDP, who are really "liberals" anyway, no doubt being the majority of the party for a long time now.) And really much though, I think it will more likely run similar to how it has already played out in BC, though there it was the Liberal name that carried in the Grand Alliance of The Right, with as will occur here, the NDP merely getting a piece of the passing rump (Gordon Wilson.) Though federally, given the even stronger Neocon/US subservient tenor of the times, it is more likely the Conservative name that will provide the umbrella for this level of the Grand Neocon Alliance.

But certainly, again as Frank suggests with his, "Damn right." comment above, there is a small benefit that is also going to pass to the "more radical" left here, in all likelihood, out of the carving up of the Liberals and the taint it is likely to leave upon the already much right leaning NDP, which has been growing ever more estranged from its "left" for a long time now anyway.

Which I personally think would be a good thing, frankly. For it would clear the air at least some. In the evolving political soup, there is going to at some point emerge anyway, certainly need to emerge, a sharper demarcation line between right and left, as the drawing of a new battle line for the future, in this drift towards fascism within current US dominant, Canadian capitalism.

So while the fact of this discussion is currently largely a negative, and a reflection of the continuing drift to the ever more extreme right in Canadian politics and its deep integration with The Empire, it carries with it "some" expanded possibilities for the Left, and quite possibly, exciting new alliances there as well.

While the ruling class political side of the resulting equation would certainly have those deeper cash and corporate influence pockets to draw on, and no small thing, a more clearly defined Left which might even be attractive enough for such as myself to finally come in from out of the political wilderness cold :-), would get a shot of that idealist energy too long locked up within the smothering comfort and compromise cesspool that is the NDP.

In short, the coming split may, if it indeed does come to pass as I expect, may again, just run through more than the Liberal camp.

All that said, the fortunes of a more socially transformative committed and capable "Left" , in my read of the tea leaves, does not occur short of US military defeat in its Empire ambitions in the Middle East, dragging us down with it, including their collapsing "paper economy", and ours "colonially" committed to it. When and if that occurs, and only then in all likelihood, the Neocon period can come to an end, and a quite new one begin to evolve that is more favourable to an end time view of the prevailing socio-economic order.

This Neocon Capitalism period however, characterized by a rampaging US capitalism fighting to control the world and create a globally straddled Empire, aided by its Coalition of Flunky Nations, amongst this latter which we are now numbered, does have to run its course, until it finally hits the wall, for the fortunes of The Left to significantly change.

My read.

When this "Neocon Capitalism" has exhausted the planet's resources, sullied all ecosystems, and burned up every last drop of fossil fuel why would the "fortunes of The Left" differ from the fortunes of all the world's people? Lemmings tumbling over the edge of a cliff tend to forget their political and ideological positions; it may even be stated that they are rendered irrelevant.
Point being that being against despoiling, deforesting, and developing this blue marble into a parking lot is all well and good, but by not actively battling it we all condone the deterioration.

Tommymoore,

For sure, I would not say that you are wrong. There is no guarantee that the human experience or a revival of the fortunes of "the left" is either going to occur or be successful, or in time. It really is entirely possibly that we will all fug it up irretrievably.

I find it difficult to let go of all optimism however. :-) I do need to hold open the possibility of some hope, and I do really think there is that room for "some" hope. For there is no total guarantee of the extinction of the species either.

My point stands essentially correct however, I think, given my experience with people, including my own social class and the socio-economic order of capitalism: Folks generally, especially on the heels of a long experience with postwar prosperity which served to convince most of them of the "correctness" of capitalism, and to "believe" in it, and its consumer and endless growth culture, are unlikely to be convinced otherwise short of a catastrophic collapse of the system and its economic base, that they should rise up in massive numbers against it. I would like to think I will be proven wrong, but I do not.

And I do see the strong "possibility" of that impending collapse looming out there in the evolving dynamic of our own current national realities, and global geopolitical events.

And even then, as you observe rightly I think, there really is a danger that even by then it will all be too late.

But we shall have to see. :-) And it's not as if I have never been wrong before. And it is preferable even for me that I be so.

I think a coalition, any coalition of disparate parties would be very good news for this countyr, if only because it would require compromise and co-operation to accomplish anything.

Real Canadian values, compromise and co-operation. We've been missing them badly for a while now.

Maybe one reason Tommy Douglas is considered a great Canadian is that he accomplished what he did through compromise and co-operation to the benefit of all. Not some special interest or other. All.

The Greens who post here lament the unlikelihood of their achieving power. I think I can tell them, or any party of any stripe how to guarantee it. Election reform is the key to Canada now.

My take is that Canadians are sick and angry at being lied to by candidates and parties and scared to death of anyone who might get a majority again and be in a position to force their own secret agenda on us against our will.

We all believe that's what they want, the power hungry liars who want to control us. Liberal, Conservative or NDP, Even the Greens are suspected of being wolves in sheep's clothing.

Anyone who will make lying by candidates to get elected a criminal offense will touch a wellspring.

If you promise a law making it illegal for a government to pursue any course not set out in their official platform without seeking a new mandate, you will be elected on the strength of that promise alone, so fearful are we of secret agendas.

Bailey posts:

So now you get to tell us how this Electoral reform miracle will come about?

I find it funny that so many of the 'new' left is parroting the policy of the former 'old' right Reform Party.

Electoral Reform was the heart of Preston Mannings vision for changes in the governance of the country. Too bad we did not listen then, for we certainly will not listen now....

You're probably right, murdock.

A legacy perhaps of all the distrust and bad faith we've had from all the "reformers" we've had to endure. I personally still have an attic full of snake oil I got from these Bozos.

Metaphoric snake oil of course, no actual snakes were harmed in the writing of this reply.

To be fair a lot of NDP'ers did like the Reform ideas on electoral reforms. Its the rest of the package that turned us off.

Too bad it appears that those ideas are pretty much dead under the Cons. The party in power always seems to lose its reform-the-system energy that it had when in opposition.

I don't see much hope of the Liberals & NDP 'forming a coaltion' or - forming a new 'party' ...perhaps I am wrong..but what is in it for the 'party brass' and leadership of each party to do that? Given the acrimony of the last election between the NDP & the Liberals it seems such a dubious idea.

What may be possible ...is "co-operation between the NDP & Liberals" in the form of an 'electoral accord' - a riding by riding strategy across the country ...devised to create a unified front against Conservative candidates in each riding. However, each of the parties will not do that unless pushed by members/citizens....and unless there is a common 'cause celebre' to rally around. ..and such a 'cause celebre' is pro-rep..and the opportunity it presents for all Canadians.

I must say this, it is conceivable that the Harper government will not last more than a few months, that they will lose a confidence vote in Parliament, and then the Governor General may call upon the Liberals to see if they could form a government...who would the Liberals turn to...but the NDP again...and it would be at that time that the NDP could strongly insist that the price for co-operation is 'implementation of a pro-rep" system....and some other 'electoral reforms'...say a bill on floor crossing, etc.

We live in interesting times, my hope is that Layton's legacy...will indeed be the implementation of a proportional rep. system of voting. That will reduce the seats of both the Conservatives & the Bloq in Parliament...and create a Parliament that more accurately reflects the actual voting preferences of citizens. Once we have a Parliament that more accurately reflects voter preference ...then we can go to the next step...which must be 'constitutional reform'...institutional redesign...under the direction of a pro-rep elected 'constitutional constituent assembly'...which could then be a Parliament thusly elected.

[blockquote]I don't think the Greens qualify as a left wing party except on the environment.[/blockquote]

Meanwhile back on planet earth political scientists discovered that caring about the environment is not a "left" issue at all.

I somehow doubt that the members of the IWW, United Fishermen and the Teamsters are more enthusiastic environmentalists than Canfor or Dow Chemical, oh wait, I know they're not.

I won't even bother with the green/left/right thing again, but for the sake of maintaining your credibility, just try looking at the platform before 'commenting' on it.

Deja, oh that's right and health care is also not a left/right issue because Canfor execs love a heart bypass as much as a teamster.

Oh wait, taxes are not a left/right issue either because Canfor execs hate paying them just as much as teamsters.

Oh geez, and Canfor execs want education for their kids as much as teamsters do so there is no left versus right in education either. What were those teachers thinking?

Oh my gawd, there is no left versus right we've all been deceived. I know now that Greens are balls of pure light that are above the rest of us muddy souls trapped in our left versus right world.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for showing me the way out of the political box I was in.

Everyone loves the environment as much as they like puppies and kittens.

Where the rubber hits the road is what you're prepared to do about it. If you want to save ecosystems by not allowing any development in it, you're probably a left-winger. If you want to develop it because there are other ecosystems for the animals to use then you're probably a right-winger. Or if you want to develop just the parts the animals aren't standing on then you're probably a right winger. If you're willing to tell 5000 workers they're out of a job but should be excited at the possibility of becoming guides for eco-tourists then you're probably a green.

Frank
Have you seen Rudyard Griffith's Op-ed piece in today's Toronto Star?

Deja, perhaps you might clarify who you were referring to when you mentioned the IWW.

I have a sense you meant the IWA (now a part of the larger United Steelworkers of America).

The IWW, last time I looked, stood for the International Workers of the World.

Yes the IWA, home to all those tree killers and millers you like to hate so much from inside your own wood built palace.

Now why is it I suspect you may very well have shares in Canfor or Dow?

I guess those unionized workers employed by Canfor and Dow mean you don't earn as much on your investments as you might if the workers had no union protection.

So of course you would see Canfor and Dow in a better light (environment) than mere workers who simply toil to eat rather than to increase your wealth.

And while we are on the subject of the IWW, I do note someone who is even more right-of-centre than you on the Tyee Deja has been petulant enough to call himself "Wobbly" as those any real wobbly would endorse his ramblings.

Deja, I suspect those greenjeans of yours are just a tad too tight for you to make much sense here on this left-wing board.

But at least your not into calling yourself something you certainly aren't.

Yup, interesting take on the effect of what no corporate and union donations will have on the major parties.

I don't know if he's right about what he says about single issue candidates though. I just didn't follow his logic there as to why its easier for them to raise money than the usual power-crowd.

Frank:
Agreed, I was mostly thinking about his comments re the effects of the 2004 election act on financing - as you noted.

I think he's blowing smoke on the other issue - and not very convincing. Still, it might mean somebody from outside the mainstream liberal consensus will step forward as a potential candidate and actually have some sticking power.

However, liberal penury may make it impractical for them to vote against Harper's govt. for the next 12 to 16 months at the least. Unless they were doing it on an issue or under circumstances where they felt they could challenge the polling and get re-elected.
And if they have to re-establish a broader and more popular funding base (more individual members + smaller individual contributions) it may tend to change the actual character of the party more than would otherwise have been the case

I read an artical last night that Ed Deaks submitted to VIVELECANADA on February 22nd (now on page 8 of Vive), titled "The End of the Dollar Hegemony" and in which he provided this link:
http://www.house.gov/paul/cogrec/congrec2006/cr021506
I was blown away and I am desparate know if people here on the Tyee have read it and what you think.

That's true. The lack of Bay Street funding may change the Libs more than a merger with the NDP :)

I'd like to see a new face step forward. Liberal conventions always seem to be nothing more than a PR event for the latest chosen one.

Sorry I butt in on a constructive conversation - I am a loose cannon lately. Too much info washing over too few brain cells. But I still want to know what you think as its part of the big picture and key to educating the citizens of Canada. I'll shut up now. I hope.

Ohmygawd, your link doesn't go to anything by Ed Deak. Could you provide a different one?

I am so nervous posting, I make errors. Try this (I'v corrected the typo):
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/ca021506

Are you sure Ed Deak's article would be on a US congressional website?

What's the name of the article? I'll just go look on ViveLeCanada.com

My apologies for making this link so difficult! I should have stayed in bed this morning. Hope you found it by tracing my steps through Vivelecanada, Ed's link worked. Ed is pointing to info from Hon. Ron Paul of Texas (U.S. House of Representatives). Mr. Paul can proudly wear the title "honorable", unlike the majority of politicians in either of our countries.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060221184719552

Ohmygawd..I think this is the link you want...now take some deep breaths...you`re ok omg

Got it - bob the cat beat me to it - c'est la vie et merci

Thank god someone can pick up the pieces for me!
Now I've wrecked your original conversation. I am going away to hyperventilate. You've apparently read me well already.

I highly doubt that i could vote for a liberal/ndp party. I, like a lot of people i'm sure, would feel the only voice for my vote is to either vote Green or not vote at all. Two party discourage voting, and our electoral system is the real problem here, in that it encourages two party systems.

I did not know that Ed Deak had his own publicity staff?

;-)

thanks Ohmygawd, your approach to guerilla marketing was original.

Murdock: Exactly what I was thinking - you can read me too! Some of this should be discussed for the all of us to mull over. I'm not pointing to this artical so much for Ed's sake, but for all our sakes. We should be scared and think about what changes are necessary. ASAP in my opinion.

OMG,

Anyone intimately familiar with developments within the capitalist economics system, especially over the period of the rise of what is really "neo-liberal" economic theory, (think from around the time of The Iron Lady and Ronnie Raygun), though the roots are actually deeper, now merged more or less into and become a part of the rising tide of what has become Neoconservatism, as our friend Ed Deak certainly is knowledgable of, knows of this issue of paper money, its current inflated and shaky values, and the root of US (and Canadian) currency issue problems. It now seems however, from my read of this article, that it is even finding some acceptance, finally, in the US House of Representatives.

Interesting.

Not that it is going to really change anything immediately within current capitalism and US imperialism especially, though it has that potential, but in the closer scrutiny of US indebtedness to the rest of the world going on at many levels, official and otherwise, and as will even more occur if their is a major defeat of this Empire in the Middle East, it does seem to point to this House of Cards coming down in a heap at some point in the very near future. (It is why I unloaded what few stock shares I possessed some years ago. I haven't got it all quite in my mattress yet, but I do find myself wondering about it, the more I learn, for sure. :-)

Other than that OMG, thank you for the links. And a brief sharing of your excitement. :-) It was actually quite fun to observe.

In my view, though I might have a wee disagreement or two with Ed on this or that issue, on this one, I think he is entirely correct and does us all a service to raise it and help make it more widely known.

A good day. A wee whiskey sometimes helps, just one or two mind, with a calming effect. :-)

Allan:

"Deja, perhaps you might clarify who you were referring to when you mentioned the IWW."

My mistake, I always think International Wood Workers, I meant PPWC.

"Yes the IWA, home to all those tree killers and millers you like to hate so much from inside your own wood built palace."

Never said that I was opposed to using wood, or that I hate anyone.

"Now why is it I suspect you may very well have shares in Canfor or Dow?"

I don't have enough money to have investments in anything. Now I remember you, your the guy who sits around fantasizing that everyone who disagrees with you is wearing a double-breast suit and twirling a gold coin. Wierd, and kind of creepy.

"I guess those unionized workers employed by Canfor and Dow mean you don't earn as much on your investments as you might if the workers had no union protection."

I am all for union protection of worker rights, my point was simply that the NDP Party, and its strong assosiation with resource based unions, is not, and has proven its not, capable of being a trustworthy steward of the environment. Duh.

"So of course you would see Canfor and Dow in a better light (environment) than mere workers who simply toil to eat rather than to increase your wealth."

You do realize that you are projecting big time with this nonsense?

"Deja, I suspect those greenjeans of yours are just a tad too tight for you to make much sense here on this left-wing board. But at least your not into calling yourself something you certainly aren't."

Ummm... wow, your not sane, bye.

I'm O.K. now, and I'll take your advice. I didn't mean to hijack the discussion, but everything seemed mout when there are such large issues out there. Just craved some feed-back. My question comes down to - do we have politicians in Canada that can keep us on the right road? Surely, Stockwell Day doesn't share Ed's economic outlook as we are approching deep integration. What leaders can we put forward that have a handle on the big picture and not just domestically? Don't answer that - I already know. I guess the true goal is getting more balance on the Federal level and not going off on a tanget to satisfy just myself. Carry on where you left off. Thanks for your time everyone.

:-) You're not stupid, for sure.

And come back anytime. You didn't interfere with anything, but were a part of the discussion. :-)

Ohmygawd poses:

first off, since you have discovered the lack of value in the money system, now consider your oxymoronic statement above.

You are asking politicians , the persons whom have created the problem in the first place, to be part of a solution? The persons, systems and methods that created the problem will never be able to solve it = mostly because they are benefitting from the system.

second you are talking about a right road, please define this.

Murdock:
You are dead right about me asking the wrong people. Reality check. I hardly know what to think. I can't spell either, apparently. (I shouldn't re-read my own stuff). I don't want to assume I know what the right road is, and I don't have the answers. That's why I am here, not to make a point, honestly, but to pick your brains. Ive been "dumbed down" for too long and I'm trying to catch up to the folks here. This speech by Ron Paul rang danger bells for me, and I looked here for someone to lead me thru the darkness, so to speak. Hit me with more reality anytime you want.

Ohmygawd, thank you for the kind words, but we all here cannot have all the answers either; this is where the 'town hall' begins, a melting-pot of different ideas and opinions.

Our 17th Century system of governance must do a lot of catch-up before it gets run over by a technology driven future that takes no prisoners and leaves no part of a society unchallenged.

Your money solution lies within the difficult to break encryption of computers, if everyone started using it the 'spy-net' systems would choke on the sheer volume of materials. Moreover, business persons (meaning very nearly everybody) could count on the 'value' of their money not being stolen by the artificial 'inflation' currently coming from the central banks and governements. With private money it is much harder to monkey with the value and it is not in the interest of the private banker, for were such actions proven then the banker is out of business in a hurry.

Take the 'politician' problem, with a well-organized set of efforts, thru a combination of encryption and electoral (or referenda) kiosks one could literally have a 24-hour rein of public control over those whom govern us.

Personally I prefer the random-selection method for 2 years governance service. You get your current salary at 200% plus travelling//living expenses in Ottawa (or wherever the capitol happens to be), serve as a 'governance' post for 2 years and stand down. Your employer gets 100% of your normal salary while you are so employed in governance. Since you cannot ever serve again your total focus will not be on personal gain, nor can you expect to manipulate things for your own benefit any better.

In any event the current paper controlled and non-responsive system will have to hit the ash can.

Sooner, better.

Should we expect to find a solution of our governance problems, at least in part, via politicians? Mais, bien sur. WE are the ones, as a collective populace, who elect these folks and they are a product of the society which made them. In this respect, politicians, and their values, are a reflection of society at that point and time. Canada has been in a tug-of-war with its identity and values - trying to stay distinct or being swallowed by the black hole south of the 49th parallel. If capitalist interest wins, then Canadian "values", as they sit, loses and we will sink along with the mamoth ship we call USA - and the anchor that tie us to this sliding empire would be Harper and his repackaged Tories. It has slowly dawned on me (mayhap I am slow to see the whole picture) how coniving the Conservative takeover has been. Harper was aware how unpalatable the CRAP values are to Canadians, so he has slowly encapsulated the sludge into a less repugnant form - starting with the name change and ending with the double speak that has become an inherent part of the conservative leadership. It is frightening to hold a mirror up to Canada now and see the early seeds of the American takeover by the Republican agenda where the new religion culminates with the human sacrifices made to the money god.

Murdock

I've decided, although I still think your libertarian ideals are extreme and probably uncalled for, that there's enough common ground between us that there's some room for discussion. Spent the last couple of hours with Ron Paul's essay on one knee and Galbraith's 'Money' on the other. Trying, as it were to evaluate Paul in terms of Galbriath and conventional Keynesian economics.
First of all, Galbraith says that the Bretton Woods agreement, as realized by the US Govt subsequently, is a far cry from what Keynes and Harry White intended. The IMF and the world bank, as the creatures of that agreement, have been more or less completely dominated by the US Treasury since that time - So Paul's right on the effect but probably not on the cause.

The real problem, or at least I think so, may be the fact that economic policies are not really in the hands of the elected officials anyway. That is, although we have the treasured ability to throw the rascals out if they fail, the real decisions are made by appointed officals who are not subject to the discipline of either the ballot box or the market.

Moving the authority of the decision makers closer to home might not be any guarantee of better or more responsive actions on the economic tiller after all. Clearly the move toward control levers of a stricly monetarist nature, as encouraged by Friedman and his disciples, has turned out to be the precursor of a potential disaster. I wonder though, if the potential danger from foreign holdings of US reserves in both China and Japan may not be more dangerous, in the long run, than the potential for an oil financing crisis. Iran, after all, is far more subject to suasion from Europe, where most Iranian oil will be shipped, than it will be from the US. I think the Bush White House has recognized this.

In the long run, if the consumers of goods manufactured in China, Japan and India continue to live mostly in N America those countries may well be willing to preserve the present unsatisfactory relationship with the US economy for somewhat longer than Mr Paul suggests.

Avicenna:
If I could hug you I would! It would take getting the rest of the population to agree with us to fix the problem. Too bad we can't make them.
Murdock: Group Hug? I think I will leave my computer on and unplug the keyboard til I get over my conditioning and not expect others to do my thinking for me. Unless your offering...please!

I can't say how long our greed will preserve the "present unsatisfactory relationship with the US economy" - but I do know that constituents of Vancouver-kingsway (those crazy democracy loving nit wits who think they can take on the likes of Mr. Cabinet Minister and Tory at heart - Emerson) have a meeting Monday eve (March 6). I hope no one minds my posing the notice for legal action:
"Legal Action

Several people have expressed interest in seeking legal solutions to the David Emerson switch and to the larger issue affecting democratic process. In order to gain a better understanding, we are organizing a meeting on Monday March 6th starting 7pm, at the Riley Park Community Centre (located on E. 30th Ave. Ontario). The meeting will be held in the coffee shop space. This meeting will be an opportunity for those interested in exploring legal avenues to get together, share ideas, learn about options and processes, and engage in a discussion around these issues. A lawyer (and possibly two) who is interested in taking on this case will be on hand to inform the discussion. There will be no obligation on attendees, but rather this is first step in engaging and educating ourselves about the legal routes available.

I really hope you are able to attend. Please pass this message along to others who may be interested in participating in the discussion. It is an important route to explore and can make a large impact, although it must be entered into with “eyes wide open”. I look forward to meeting you there and to working to make a change!

Please note that this will be a non-partisan meeting—all are welcome. Thank you."

Avicenna
How did the 'vote' go yesterday?

I meant I would hug you if I COULD, not if I would! Once again, turning off my keyboard would go a long way to preserving my dignity.

G West,
The vote was about 94% for a by-election and the recall of Emerson. Over 900 people voted - which is a long ways away from apathy. I laughed so hard - and then cried - when Harper said that he wasn't about to bow down to the ethics commissioner because of his Liberal perspective - I wasn't aware that an ethics person could have a non-liberal viewpoint - kinda takes the oxy out of the moron....
OMG - you're not the only one ... I can the urge to give myself a hug all the time ;)

Avicenna
We've missed you! Just pass over a few posts in the 20,000 temp workers - we even had an invasion from the US - and the fish farms site and you'll get the picture.

Great news on the poll. I thought Harper's response to the ethics investigation was pretty funny too...It's tough for somebody who thinks he's the smartest man in any room to realize somebody else might actually question his actions.

What's with all these hugs?

Avicenna, thank you for the Legal Warning and your obvious involvement in a very good cause.

I don't share your riding, but I certainly share your astonishment that someone can plead for your trust and then change uniforms for personal benefit.

Don't give up on this issue because it has the legs to walk this country, believe me. People right across Canada have this up front in their news radar.

It doesn't get much more cynical than this.

It's like a horrible taste you can't get rid of no matter how many times you brush your teeth.

You have a rare opportunity to tell Canadian politicians we will not tolerate this two-faced attitude by making David Emerson an example of a politician reined in.

I must say I find it quite humourous that Stephen Harper has the gumption to question the ethics of the ethics commissioner.

This is the guy who called for the near beheading of Belinda when she fled his domain and now who won't even talk about the arrival of a freshly elected Liberal to his cabinet.

Of course, it must be a surprise to so many readers that this fine upstanding politician comes out of the corporate sector.

A swashbuckling pirate dancing in the welcoming light of the hired media glare, promising a pot-o-gold to those with the short-lived clout to make a difference.

If you voted for anyone other than a Conservative in Vancouver-Kingsway, I think you have every right in the world to be angry and to protest every opportunity you have until David Emerson acknowledges the error of his ways and resigns to run in a bi-election to clear the very bad air.

allan poses:

This is another point of confusion, about the so-called 'ethics commissioner'. The smoke and mirrors show that Darth Cretinous pulled on everyone is now coming home to roost.

The ethics puppy reports to only one person, the PM. The ethics puppy is 'his appointment',so it the ethics puppy wants his supper he will, sit up, beg, roll over, and bark the way his master dictates.

Count on nothing of value whatsoever from the current incarnation of the ethics commissioner.

Don't believe me?

Try google for Terms of Reference, Canadian Parliament Ethics Commissioner.

I had the link about 5 mins ago, but cannot get it to work right now.

Murdock
No question the current body has warts. Still, until it has been changed it's the only puppy we've got and there's a change this one might bite the master's hand - given what he wrote in response to the other defections. Shapiro knows Harper doesn't hold him in high regard and that he has little or no job security. Maybe he'll summon up some gumption and be a mensch about this report.

Probably not, but that doesn't excuse Harper's complete lack of statesmanship. That was always the thing the Cons threw at the Liberals and Harper is showing less respect for the 'institutions' of government (however lame and imperfect they are much of the time) than even I expected of someone with his self-proclaimed sense of superiority. He hasn’t, after all, been elected king quite yet.

allan, I can't disagree with anything you said - except for the last. -There are more than a handful of Conservative voters who are just as disenchanted with the unearned "air of enititlement" demonstrated by the powers-who-shouldn't-be. If we take our memories back in the time of Grewal - with tape in hand - who tried to goad Ujjal Dosanj into casting the very deal that Mr. Harper offered Emerson. It is unbelievable that at that time, Harper ran to the ethics commissioner with less to work with than the current circus running the show. It kinda makes one think that this plan has been in the works for some time. Obviously, Canadians aren't as savvy when it comes to corruption - and the conservatives will be sure to be good teachers and our education on what corruption really is. Just imagine, we'll soon be looking back and thinking sponsorship is not a scandal afterall...
I often look at the world and think how can people let those who screw everyone get away with it - and then I realize that everyone is also looking around expecting someone else to make the move. Harper and Emerson are counting on this passivity - but they picked the wrong group to test their theory. The thing that sets our riding apart is our diversity - some are astonishingly well-to-do - some struggle to pay their rent - but we are all pretty much aware of what is happening in the world - which is why it has been well over half a century before a conservative has represented us. The support of everyone across the board has helped us stay on task and not give up in the middle of the marathon.
G West - I don't know about the hugs, but I prefer them to punches.... I have been around but always on the run (I am planning my thesis defense which was just moved to the beginning of April) - but I have certainly been staying in touch with the thoughts rambling through the "feisty one on-line".

Deja, you have the usual thin skin I have come to anticipate when poking sharp things at Greenies.

Projecting?

Hey pal wake up. I don't care if you are thinking International Wood Workers (which is a complete misnomer), or the PPWC, you are the one who is projecting here and you can't even get the names straight?

Too bad if I upset your state of righteous bliss. You call me creepy when you won't even defend the cheesey comments you made about unions. You are a coward fellow.

You now claim your intent was to blather on about how corrupt the NDP and the unions were, yet you didn't mention a friggin' word about the NDP in the first post.

Deja, you are full of something and it ain't wisdom.

Yep! I'm actually kind of sick of punches too. I have a son who is just finishing his thesis and preparing to defend it as well. Tell you all about it another place another time. Best!

G West - best of luck to your son! Keep him hydrated - it is like the end of the marathon when the glucose is running low and ions need replenishing. To keep it in perspective, however, it does seem easier to complete one's doctorate than ousting a self-indulgent fascist - also known as a corporately corrupted power aficionado. But that is just my humble opinion.

Murdock, it really doesn't matter if we have the slowest of the Three Stooges serving up ethics on Ottawa.

He, the commissioner, was certainly good enough for Stephen Harper to urge to do something about politicians when he was on the losing end, until, of course, the world realized his secret agent Grewal was dirtier than those trying to entice him over to the Liberals.

Harper's claim of disdain for the man now, no matter how far up Jean Chretien's shorts he may have come from, is a public spectacle that reads CONTRADICTION on the part of Harper.

Hey, you know Emerson might just go down in history with this flip flop. Finally a politician who has shown just how slippery one can get when in pursuit of their own agenda.

He appears to have awakened an anger that I'll bet most politicians didn't realize can burst onto the scene when committed voters finally have enough of the sleeze tossed at them.

But then I guess from a corporate vantage point acts like Emersons are probably seen as positive character traits.

Get real, the NDP "true believers" couldn't even handle the thought of having former Deputy Priome Minister Sheila Copps run as an NDPer after she lost her Liberal nomination. This despite the fact that NDP Leader Jack Layton was supportive of the idea.

Remember the NDP is not a big umbrella party. You either believe their political tenants or you leave. That is why the NDP and its forerunner the CCF have tended to lose so many people over the years to the Liberals (eg Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae, Ujjal Dosanjh to list just a few of the higher profile folks...)

Sorry to take so long to respond to previous posts but away this weekend.

Bob the Cat: To say Japan was already finished before Hiroshima and Nagasaki is revisionist history at best. They were still putting up a stiff fight everywhere and, like Hitler, were not prepared to make an unconditional surrender until after the bombs were dropped. When the bombs were dropped, they were in the process of massing their resources to defned the home islands.

Jesterjogger: Anytime, I live in High Level, why not come on up but I'm no cowboy. What did you have in mind? A debate? A foot race?????

Frank: By your logic, pretty much no one has the right to call their country a country because it's pretty much all conquered land the world over. That is how we got here. With regard to WWII, I consider the Yanks to have liberated all of western Europe as without their entry into the conflict, the rest of the Allies would not have gotten off the British Isles. The lack of American air power would have meant Hitler could have produced more weapons more quickly and that coupled with less troops required to man the western wall would have allowed him to thwart the Russians. The ME 262 by itself, if able to be mass produced, would have turned the air war in Hitler's favour and the main lesson of that war was that air power was the key to victory. That doesn't even touch how badly off the allies would have been without the US lend/lease program. I also include Japan and China in the equation, again for the same reasons. I include all of the old Eastern Europe that became free after the old USSR imploded (and please don't use the revisionist argument that it was doomed to failure because that is not what progressives were saying back then, they were mocking Reagan, as they now mock GW, calling him a cowboy, not too bright etc). I would also include Afghanistan and Iraq and would support this contention with all of the positive news coming from both of those countries, although, admittedly one has to look long and hard to find this information as it is not too popular with the "progressive" MSM.

With regard to being at war, we do have troops fighting as part of the GWoT and yes, OBL did classify Canada as #3 on his list. I don't think it too far fetched to imagine a scenario where AQ can't get a device into the USA due to security so they take it to Toronto and wait for a prevailing southerly wind.

Here's an exercise that should scare all "progressives". Try to visualize North America (ok, Canada and USA) with blue for Conservative/Republican and Red for Liberal/Democrat. I doubt it will get much better over the near term either as despite the left's attempts to paint Harper as scary, he isn't and won't be and if the Democrats don't win this Nov with GW's poll numbers in the toilet then they certainly won't win in 2008, especially if Hill the Pill is their candidate. Personally, I would love to see Hill vs Condi in 2008. I also find it ironic that the red areas of both countries are largely the areas that should be the most concerned as they would be first on OBL's list.

Anyway, nice communicating with all of you. Nice site.

well oilbertan you`re certainly "pulverizing us revisionists"
I guess our read on history differs..
You kind of lost me on the blue/red analogy..but i guess you won`t have to worry `bout OBL up in High Level...don`t you mean High River?

Back in the day, my Professor for Canadian Politics, Alan Cairns, used to alternate in his description of the Liberals as either the NGP or NBP:

1) The Natural Governing Party. This was in the days of Mr. Mulroney's first term, which Prof. Cairns saw as a natural periodic interlude in the Liberal's indomitable mandate, which had stretched over the majority of years since Canada's establishment. He saw the conservative's key role in politics as the broom with which Canadians cleaned house periodically before restoring the broom to the closet. This was his painfully humorous summary of the outcome of the Liberal's successful ability to function as Canada's:

2) National Brokerage Party. This was the heart of the matter, he lectured us. Only the Liberals have had the ability to remain positioned (looking backward and forward) in so many ways in the middle along with the majority of Canada's polity. (Accepting as given the first-past-the-post nature of Canada's democracy).

His analysis was first: that Canada was sufficiently neither socialist nor aligned with vested interests to such an extent that any party too closely aligned either way could hold on to power for long. Secondly: In a country as geographically vast and weakly united as is Canada, such a multitude of local interests and needs could never be well served by any ideology other than liberal (small 'l') pragmatism. The Liberals have successfully 'brokered' regional, class, ideological, gender, business, labour, environmental, etc, interests at the national level in order to balance administration after administration upon public support.

Liberal strategists have been in this current situation many times in the past. This little upset isn't going take away from the well established fact that in Canada, the middle of the road is the right place to be for a long run claim on the mandate to govern.

Bob the Cat:

No, High Level. High River is south of Calgary, High Level is about 100 miles south of the NWT border. Sorry if I lost you on the red/blue analogy but I keep seeing red/blue t shirts for sale in the US with most of the country Repub Red. Not sure why in Canada red = left, blue = right and it's the reverse in USA - must be something lost in the translation. The point being that virtually all of NA would be coloured with the conservative colours. Personally I think this is a rural urban divide similar to the gun control issue (and no, I don't like guns and have never owned one). Have a good one.

tcahill
Not quite sure where you're going with this. I'd just simply comment that you're a bugger for the obvious, How's the gout?
Cheers

Well, thank you! I've been able to get my shoe on for over a week. As for where I'm going: that should be equally obvious. Based on Prof. Cairns analysis, why the hell would the Liberals mess up a good thing 9as in: it works) by formally hooking up with the NDP?

So, all the hand-wringing over the fate of Canada at the hands of the nefarious Conservatives and the need to unify of die, seems, at this early date in the Conservative mandate, no more apropos than history shows it was at similar stages in other Conservative mandates. Bugger indeed!

Ha Ha, Glad you took it in the right light. Obviously, I think this time it's different. The US is in a real pickle financially and Harper is nothing if not committed to moving us much closer to them this time round. The media situation has changed radically too so I'm not certain any thinking person should be as sanguine about the outcome as you are. Prof Cairns notwithstanding!
Cheers

The same argument could be said of the other Allies. How would US forces have gotten at the enemy without Britain? Invade Britain first directly from New York? Ya right. Also, without the Soviets winning in the east and destroying most of the German army Europe would still be German occupied, regardless of what the US did.

Production in Germany increased during the strategic bombing campaign by US-British and Cdn air forces.

The West was already stripped pretty bare of troops. Most forces in the west were there to rest from their time on the eastern front. Other divisions were less than low-quality and good for nothing beyond beach defence. Their addition to the battle of Kursk or the destruction of Army Group Centre would not have changed the outcome of the war in the east one iota.

The US prevented the ME-262? Nope. The 262 was an example of Hitler looking for "secret weapons" instead of concentrating industry on mass production. Let him make his 262's, Heinkel rocket planes, buzz-bombs and handfuls of Tiger IIs and wastes of money like the Jagdtiger. He was helping the ALlies by doing so. Instead of secret weapons he should have tried to outproduce the Soviets on good tanks. The numbers of T34s produced was way more than Germany's production of Panzer IV's and Panthers. Same goes for subs, much more effective at the pointy end than 262's.

Both included as what? They were on opposite sides. You can't claim the US conquered China because it didn't happen nor can you claim US forces liberated China because it didn't happen.

Allied forces in Europe exceeded US forces. What protected Europe was nukes, French, British and US.

It doesn't matter if OBL's whole family put Canada at the top of their hit lists. He's nothing more than a gang. He's not a country, he's the equivalent of Pancho Villa. We don't go to war against an individual hiding somewhere.

I don't think he pays attention to Red vs Blue otherwise why would he have attacked New York City, which is Blue.

It is, thanks.

Well, thanks, I think. I'll take cheerfully optimistic over chicken little unless the auguries and auspicies are very dire, which they obviously are not! Who can you cite as an example of what you fear Harper will accomplish? Mr. Mulroney? He still can't be seen on the same platform as any of the new conservatives. Mr. Clark? No. Not Mr. Clark. Mr. Diefenbaker? Too bad about the Arrow, but really, he accomplished nothing that successive Liberal terms were unable to undo. So really, what you are all in a conniptions about is unprecedented in Canadian History. It is very far from established that Mr. Harper can translate his capitalization of a protest vote into a sustained revision of Canada's destiny.

Hi Frank.
The point is that WWII was a European conflict that the American public refused to sanction until Pearl Harour. Canada, Oz & NZ were already in it as part of the British Empire. My point was simply that without the Americans getting involved none of the Allies was strong enough to get off the British Isles. Who knows what would have happened but I think it is safe to say that the conflict would have been significantly prolonged which feeds into my point about the ME 262, movement of troops to counter the Russians etc. You refer to the battle of Kursk which, as I recall took place in 1943/44 (?), well after the effects of American led bombing had taken their toll. I do realize that under the auspices of Albert Speer that the German's productivity actually increased but how much greater would it have been without all of the bombing which did have a negative impact.
With regard to China, America was the main reason the Japanese were defeated and China freed (for a while at least). In Japan,Germany and Italy, the Americans did not act imperially, they left a much better situation than was there before. I find it humourous that people seem to think the Americans should be able to bring change to Iraq in such a short period when it took years to effect change in the axis countries after WWII and there are still significant troops in Germany and Japan, albeit for differing reasons. Unfortunately that seems to be the way things are at this time, everything is expected to be done/solved instantaneously.
Refer Hurricane Katrina.As for the Cold War, again, without the American presence, I seriously doubt the Russians would have been deterred by the French, nukes or no nukes and besides when was the last time the French ever fought for anything, 1918?

The point with regard to OBL is that I don't believe he would hesitate to set off a device, whether a dirty bomb, nuke or whatever, wherever he thought it would have the best chance of killing as many infidels as possible. If he can

Frank
Nicely done. Not only did the Soviets bleed off the German land forces they also bled the most themselves. War related deaths, both military and civilian for all Axis forces totalled 10,754,000. On the Allied side the USSR lost 20 million and China lost 10 million. The Americans, in both theatres, lost a total of 274,000 - military. Talk about revisionism!

tcahill
Yep, and more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush - you're not making me feel any better! That little fiscally conservative non nation-building Texan has borrowed more money than all other US Presidents combined – and he did it in less than 6 years. The total US debt is now more than 8.2 trillion dollars. So much for expectations!

Harper is an ideologue, he's very different from any other modern politician we've ever had in this country and he has his hands of the levers of power. Just analyze what he did since Jan 23 and look at the polls. Any analyst of politics who never refers to anything except what happened in the past is as blind as somebody who knows 'nothing' about the past.

This situation is radically different and if a lot of people don't wake up it's going to be a different country very soon. In addition, it won't just be health care that changes either. This country is a seething mass of regional concerns and resentments; every provincial leader is salivating at the thought of more tax points and Harper's going to deliver that in spades. Moreover, under the new electoral financing rules the Liberals aren't going to be able to play the old Bay Street shuffle the way they always did before. It's ironic that the new Elections Act may end up being Jean Chretien's best revenge for the way the party dumped him.

Hey, I hope you’re right and it’s going to be business as usual, but I don’t think so.

Somewhat because of our record in WWI we had become pretty much independent. Britain couldn't force us to go to war and could no longer declare war for us. We made our own declaration of war, Sept 10th 1939, a full week after Britain and 9 days after the attack on Poland.

And my point is simply that the same can be said the other way. Canada and Britain may not have had the strength to attack France on their own but neither could the US without them.

I really don't think US bombing can be claimed as a reason for the German defeat at Kursk. It took the US time to gear up and in fact it was the Commonwealth doing most of the bombing in '42 and much of '43. US daylight raids had to wait till there was adaquate fighter cover and there was a serious fighter-escort range problem till later in the war.

This is a long debated point. I am on the side of strategic bombing detractors who say that German morale and production both went up during the bombing. Just as the Blitz rallied Britons the effects of bombing are not always negative.

I think you're ignoring other actors such as the British and the Burma Road and how Japanese Army morale collapsed when the Soviet Red Army attacked. Certainly the Americans played a key role in the Pacific theatre, defeating the Japanese Navy at Midway, Coral Sea and Leyte Gulf. But as far as the Japanese Army in China and Manchuria it was others who inflicted most of the damage.

I would argue that MacArthur acted more imperially in Japan than the previous Japanese gov't. He practically cultivated it.

Actually I said French, British and American nukes. And yes, I do believe nukes were a deterrent as were all the NATO forces. Non-US forces actually in Europe outnumbering the US forces.

As for the French, they fought in WW1 and WW2 and in Indo-China and North Africa. The US skipped almost all of WW1. I don't think the French have anything to prove military-wise.

I enjoyed it, thank you

Hi Frank.
Good point with respect to German morale and productivity during the daily bombings.
Thanks again.

GWest, if memory serves, the Russians were losing 500,000 troops a month pushing across Poland into Germany. I don't think we give as much credit as we should to the sacrifices of the Russians during their Great Patriotic War. Especially when they had just went through Stalin's mass murders and purges etc of the 30's. Explains a lot about Russian policies after Stalin and even the nostalgia for the old days that we see now.

Frank
No kidding! And what a tank the T34 was - they used to drive them right out of the factory, unpainted, and into battle. Whenever I hear the climax of Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony, I can imagine them rolling out across the steppes. Why the Russians there, in Leningrad, had any morale left after the siege is a mystery to me? Some kind of testament to the human spirit.

Frank
Interesting to read that while the Japanese were able to take much of SE Asia in order to access resource and to maintain resource production at the site, most of the raw materials never left or made it back to Japan, in fact the British were able to grab large stockpiles of tin and rubber when they reoccupied the Malay peninsula.

Colin, I didn't know that. I knew US navy subs interdicted Japanese shipping out of the Dutch East Indies and so on but I had always assumed most of it got back to Japan.

GWest,

Agreed, the fact that people living under that siege still went to work and would drop dead on the job is amazing.

As for the T-34, compared to the stuff the Brits, French and US were producing it was outstanding and far ahead of the Germans until the Panther came onstream.

Biggest war in history between two countries and unfortunately because of the Cold War too much of our knowledge is shaped by histories from the German point of view. That's changing now. Fortunately for Europe there was a trained Siberian army to counter-attack at Moscow.

I find the reader commentary on this site bolsters my confidence that Canadian patriotism will never allow the meaningful surrender of Canada's independence.

You guys are made of solid stuff, and are not likely to turn or bow. Even the Tyee's repeated attempts at irrelevant distraction (with it's stories and editorials) never succeeds for very long in de-railing the reader-commentary on this site from the truly important matters at hand.

Cheers

hey tcahill,good to hear you are doing well.

exercise my boy,get a stationary bike and mount your key boards... then let loose on the world

U'd be surprised who's listening !

and ya wouldn't need any meds...screw the pharmacompanies...

exercise !

That would be great. There are very little difference between the liberals, the NDP anywyas. I never heard a peep from the NDP when the Liberals announced sending troops to Afghanistan. Now they want a hearing... They never made a peep about Emerson being a CEDO and working on behaalf of the companies that he represent. Talk about conflict of interest... Emerson is and has been walking conflict of interest. Did anyone raise a peep before?
So the merger of the NDP and liberals makes sense because they are so muc alike....

wellherewegoagain
Don't forget that Harper and his buddies were all for a debate about troops in Afghanistan just a few months ago - and now, not so much!
They were all for the ethics commissioner in the grewal/dosanj case - and now, not so much!
Harper hated floor crossers when it was Brison and Stronach - and now, not so much!
Harper was the perfect model of the ethical politician just two months ago - and now, not so much.
More similarities between Liberals and Conservatives, if you ask me.

The Cons and Libs are so close ideologically that most Canadians won't notice any difference between Harper and Martin. The only changes Harper will make will be cancelling things Martin only did for the campaign anyway.

They should merge.

Frank

The T-34 was outstanding at the beginning, but by 1943 was being left behind, the turret was to small and the commander also had to double as the gunner or loader (can’t remember which) It suffered from a lack of radios, poor vision and poor optics. Even the T34/85 was no match for the M4E8 Sherman in Korea.

It interesting to note that while the Russians had the excellent T-34, the ok KV-1 and quite a few good light tanks (that equalled most countries mediums) They lost to German Panzer divisions armed mostly with Pz I’s & II’s armed with machine guns and 20mm guns backed by a scattering of PZ III, IV and PZ38(T)’s.

Interesting to note that almost all of the Russian ammunition manufacturing was dependent on one ingredient that was being shipped in by the West, the name of which escapes me at present.

It was the coordination of all arms, leadership and radios that gave the German’s the edge, but once the Germans had to commit to set piece attacks and give up manoeuvre warfare the advantage passed to the Russians.

Didn’t help that the Germans royally pissed off all the various populations they overran, who originally saw the Germans as Liberators from Stalin’s yoke.

Germany should have granted generous surrender terms and set up provisional governments in Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states giving them certain rights and pushed to have them supply the men and machines for the Eastern front.

Colin
Don't underestimate the role of the climate and the cold and even the mud. The Russians had better boots and German tactics were too often determined by an idiot - although often modified and overruled in the field. The advantage of superior intelligence was also a big factor at Kursk as was the immobility of Model's Ferdinands. Denied the high ground he couldn't adequately support the gains Hoth had made in the south and the writing was on the wall.

Frank and GWest: Suppose ideology just isn't that important or helpful in the great game of power? Have you considered that it is ideology that has kept the NDP out of power? Consider this as Sun Tsu or Clausewitz might have: Socialist integrity is a suit of armor, but it is heavy and prone to rust, thus limiting mobility and often leaves the Good Knights of the Left languishing far from the fields of Battle.

The fact that two enemies have become like one another is rarely a reason for them to lay down arms. Convergence in means and volition is what arms races often produce. As I've suggested in my earlier posts, it's all about pragmatism: what does it require to take and hold power?

The Liberals and Conservatives are in a struggle to see which coalition can best arbitrate between the multitude of conflicting social, economic and regional interests. The Liberals, by-and-large, pragmatically hold the best strategic position in Canada's political/economic landscape. From where they sit, they can quickly occupy positions of either the left or the right as the situation warrants.

You can rail against the situation all you like, but seeing reality is the key to changing it. For the NDP to assume democratic power, it must either:

1) move to where it can appeal to a sufficient number of interests. This would be a Realist adgenda: to become Pragmatic New Labour Capitalists -- as seen in the UK -- that must fight to A) displace the Liberals from their strategic position, and B) supress the socialist element in the Party that will not make peace with pragmatists or capitalists, or

2) move sufficient Canadian interests to where they will find the NDP appealing. This would be a Utopian agenda: to change human nature to embrace Socialism.

There is no third path to power. For the NDP to retain it's ideology, it must remain a minority party. That's where the NDP is, out of sync with a workable majority, and bewildered that more people don't want to team up with it.

tcahill
Ryan is calling for a coalition of similar interests to come together to deny Harper a majority - I think that's similar to your option no. 1.

Frank says it probably won't work and he may be right - too many traditional liberals would turn down a real coalition and too many ideological socialists would avoid any formal compromise.

I think there are a lot of liberals, especially in eastern and central Canada, who are a lot closer to the pragmatic wing of the NDP than I think Frank believes. Right wing liberals should join the Conservatives – I wouldn’t want them to be a fifth column in a coalition anyway.

But I think old line CCF/NDP/labour voters are a lot more pragmatic than he and you think and would do just fine in a formal coalition with progressive liberals. That’s where the British example is germane, in my opinion.
There’s a long list of policies on which there is at least some agreement: A coalition might work as long as both parties had significant cabinet power.
As for your second option, I don't believe in Utopias, period. Especially Stephen Harper utopias.

Sorry if that was unclear, because it is actually the opposite of my no. 1. Power will go to those who can band together despite their differing interests. The common tie would be an understanding of give a little - get a little.

Thank you for making my point. This is exactly why option 1, is so very unlikely, and even more unlikely to ever achieve power. The fact is, too many on the left find it unthinkable to form any kind of political alliance with anyone on the right. This is an unfortunate form of blindness. There are many worthy persons on the left and right, and right now, only in the Liberal party can they find a mutual home. Only a broad coalition party embracing the left, center and right has a long term potential for majority governments.

If you can't get along with the Right, you can take your bat and ball and go home, but you've got to admit that is what you are deciding to do: not play ball.

Just consider the irony of your use of the term "fifth column". That phrase as you probably well know, came from a time of bitter struggle and even more bitter paranoia. When the Left, center and many on the Right were fighting for the survival of the Spanish Republic, they threw away any strategic advantage in ruthless purges that removed the need for any real fifth column. The Fascists just waited outside the gates while those inside killed each other.

The left refuses to learn.

I should also say that a broad coalition of the left center and right have gathered together in the cause of Nationalism under the Bloc Quebecois. Clearly, such alliances are politically formidable.

How many minutes do you think organizations like the Bloc and the PQ would remain united if they ever achieved Quebec Statehood? Perhaps the arrangement would prove quite stable, and then you might see the Bloc and the PQ duking it out for power with no real policy difference between them.

tcahill
First of all, you're not the only person who reads history, I chose my words carefully and I know what they mean.

Let’s ignore option 2 – okay.

Now, it seems to me you're being inconsistent. I said I disagree about the intransigence of the old line socialists in the NDP and suggested that Ryan's ideas aren't just whistling in the wind when it comes to fashioning a workable coalition. Either you accept my point of view or you don’t. However, if you grant it’s a possibility then we have something to talk about other than reiterating the two or three different ways you’ve decided to say you disagree. Further, I know you prefer to believe that Harper is not the ideologue I say he is and this makes it difficult for you to empathize with my position. For the sake of argument, let’s say I’m right and you’re wrong. Now, given those premises, let’s continue.

I’m not arguing about your traditional assessment of the pragmatic character of Liberal politics from an historical point of view. I think there may now be a unique opportunity opening up for progressive voters who want to protect this country from conservative hegemony to come together in a coalition that will also advance their vision of what this country is, and should be, all about. One way that could have happened was through proportional representation but in my view that will never happen as long as the Liberals & the Conservatives are the only parties with a chance of forming a majority government.

Consequently, if Canadians are ill at ease with Mr. Harper and his ideological perspective – and I suggest an awful lot of them are – then they have to do something practical about it. Without 30 seats from Quebec the Liberals are seriously wounded as a national party and without the old bay street bonanza (no longer available under the new contribution rules) they may begin to see the value in a real coalition (where both partners share power) and I think this changes the whole dynamic.

It's probable that the right wing opportunists and business flunkies who have always been an important part of the liberal aristocracy may well be reconsidering their allegiance. That's partly because of changes in election financing and partly because they probably see more to gain (from their point of view) from Harper's corporatist agenda. Look, the conservatives aren’t likely to get much stronger in the west – in fact, Harper’s current seeming disconnect from his reform roots may well turn a lot of his most ideological voters off. Anyone who’s interested in stopping them is going to have to do it in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces and Newfoundland. I think progressive voters are more motivated right now than they’ve been since the Thirties and I think that fact, combined with the snowball effect of the environmental disaster that’s on the horizon makes Ryan’s proposal interesting and serious. The threat to universal health care is another important part of this equation and whatever faction gets on the side of the angels in that debate is going to have a huge advantage. I think Harper is snookered on the question because of his Alberta roots and the coalition should be able to use that to advance their cause measurably.

It may be a fractious marriage but I think it’s worth putting the option on the table. I’m neither Liberal nor NDP but I’m scared to death of Harper and his band of clones: I hope that some people in the two parties take the time to read Ryan’s letter and think about it.

Gwest: I'm working on it....

tcahill

Take your time, I'm off for the evening.
Cheers

Colin,

Command control was the primary Germany advantage that allowed them to make the gains they did. Well, that's simplistic, there were lots of reasons not the least being Stalin's purges of the officer corps before the war.

A good tank with sloped armour and a good gun can beat a bad one. But that won't win you the war. You mentioned radios, which of course is a command control advantage for the Germans.

Trying not to be wordy, hope I'm not being confusing. To cut to the chase, a better tank couldn't make up for all the other problems the Red Army went into battle with but things would have been worse without the advatage in tank quality.

Models of the T-34 were being left behind by 1943 but the Germans had obsolete tanks even in 1941 and you mentioned some like the 38t.

The T34/85 version was introduced in 1944 to counter the new German designs such as the Panther and Tiger. It was successful in terms of its goal.

When you compare 1941 tanks versus 1941 tanks, 1942 versus 1942 etc you gotta give the advantage to the Russians overall in the first half of the war. In the 2nd half the Germans had high quality tanks but it was too late, the new designs were not available in the numbers required, they were massively outproduced.

Yup on the first part. On the 2nd, the Germans really didn't do a good job when the Russians stopped retreating or in set-piece battles like Kursk. Way above I referred to how much of our knowledge is shaped by German histories and you come to think of guys like Manstein as super-heroes who could have won the war if it wasn't for Hitler and overwhelming numbers of Russians.

I have some problems with this because its not like the Russians didn't also suffer from some bad leadership. I don't want to go so far as to claim that this is German WW1 history repeating itself, except instead of blaming the home front for its defeat the army can blame Hitler, but there are similar elements at work.

The Germans won some big victories in 1941 and the summer of '42 but they were beaten fair and square in my opinion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. And after Kursk it was all downhill, Hitler or no Hitler.

Just as in 1918 the German army was soundly thrashed on August 8th by the Canadians, home front or no home front.

Again, trying not to be wordy, this subject is wide and deep and I'm not pretending to be doing it justice.

Germany should have granted generous surrender terms and set up provisional governments in Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states giving them certain rights and pushed to have them supply the men and machines for the Eastern front.

Yup

tcahill,

Depends who you're asking, an NDP'er or a leftist. An NDP'er would be pragmatic but a leftist wouldn't. I'm a leftist, I'll support the NDP if its supporting left-wing goals but as soon as it sells out for political advantage my loyalty can't be taken for granted.

Provincially, in both Sask and BC I don't mind the NDP doing what it needs to retain power. Because provincially its a 2 horse race and I can see the advantage of supporting the lesser of two evils as long as it really is the lesser. When the leader of the other side is Grant Devine or a drunk driver its pretty clear to me the NDP is. But what if the leader of the BC Libs was Trudeau? Would Carole James still look left-wing? Nope.

Federally its a different game. The Libs are already the gov't most of the time. If there were to be no more NDP they would still be the gov't most of the time and would still get tossed out now and then by the Cons when people were tired of looking at them. So where's the advantage to a leftie to see the NDP absorbed? We'd lose the only left-wing voice in return for supporting the lesser of two evils party. Big deal.

That's my answer to your #1.

Sure its utopian but principles matter more than power. I'm not going to jettison my beliefs on child poverty or the huge problems of laissez-faire capitalism in return for some magic beans. The ideals of the CCF were founded in the depression, the problems of 1935 have not been eliminated, therefore the CCF is still needed to speak for those that don't own their own newspaper.

There is no way I would ever support a Paul Martin who gutted the social safety net just because a Harper might, might, be worse. I have yet to see a humble politician that won claim he only did so not because of his great ideas but only because the other guy is a bigger jerk. If we were all to vote for Martin he would think we no longer gave a rat's ass for issues like child poverty and therefore those issues would be removed from the national agenda. So why would I support that outcome?

Frank
Not to butt in here, was just checking back to see if tcahill had responded to mine earlier.

I agree with what you're saying so long as the current aberration is business as usual and, even if it isn't, I don't think the NDP has to surrender its principles.

But, as I proposed above, if it's not business as usual and Harper appears to be successfully making progress toward turning this country into a republic (and I think that's Ryan's essential thesis) then I think progressive forces would not be surrendering their principles in a properly organized and constituted coalition with whatever part of the liberal party was still viable and interested in order to respond to Harper's plans and offer the Canadian people a real alternative. In fact, far from surrendering their principles, they’d be reacting in the only responsible way in a desperate situation (not unlike the compromising that has to be done, as you mention, in a province like Saskatchewan from time to time). I think such a campaign could be as ideological as you like - in fact it would have to be.

Who leads this coalition would be an important factor, as would the platform and the potential structure and staffing of a post-election cabinet. I think it’s not time, certainly, to put such a plan on the table but I think Ryan is right that it needs to be considered and held in readiness in the event.

And of course I agree that there's no way it could be led by a Paul Martin.
Cheers.

GWest, I've outlined why I would oppose it ideologically but I want to add to my argument against it even on pragmatic grounds.

Let's assume the federal Cons merged with the Libs. Sort of like what happened provincially in BC with Social Credit. In the next election the point of friction would be the dividing line between the NDP and the Lib-Cons. Corporate tax-cuts would not be mentioned and nobody would be quoting a press release from the Michael Walker clones. Instead, you'd have a campaign fought on issues of interest to the people who could go either way.

In other words, a Con-Lib merger would be an NDP dream scenario because it would shift the entire centrepoint of debate in this country to the left and right-wing issues wouldn't even be on the radar.

An NDP-Lib merger would move the entire debate to the right. Right now the NDP get their issues discussed and sometimes adopted. That would cease after a merger. Therefore, in my opinion, a Lib-NDP merger would be the best scenario the right could ever see.

The NDP would have a say in the first few years as the price of their support but over time they would be swallowed whole even though 1 out of 3 voters in the new party would have been an NDP'er originally.

Frank
So, we don't disagree on ideological terms. And I think, at least initially that the NDP would have to avoid what you call a merger. The Liberals in Britain never merged with Labour - they joined a coalition which Labour soon dominated. Now you could argue that today's Labour party is a far cry from Ramsay MacDonald's beginnings and that'd be another question because, as you said - apropos of Saskatchewan - when you're talking about power you make more deals with the devil and you end up being much more pragmatic. Of course, the British situation could just be a question of relative numbers - Labour, in 1923, having significantly more MPs - but there could be other reasons related to policy and leadership as well.

If progressive people believe that their principles and policies are the right ones for the country, and if they further believe that the current (in our case current and future) political direction of the country is inimical to those ideals, don't those people have an obligation to do whatever's necessary to try and oppose the coming changes in whatever practical ways they can? Even if that includes the danger you mention.

The future is uncharted territory but we do know what Stephen Harper thinks of the NDP, it's on record. I think a party that believes it has a better way to do things, for the majority of Canadians and for the country itself, may have a duty beyond just ideological consistency, to respond to a real threat to the fundamental nature of this land. I think that’s what Ryan is saying and I’d bet a lot of others are thinking the same thing right about now as Harper heads to his meeting with Fox and Bush to tie up loose ends and begin the move toward , what is the current jargon, Deep Integration.

Of course, you might be right about the eventual outcome. Nevertheless, I think you could argue that progressive ideas are persuasive over the long run too. Just look at Saskatchewan: The CCF was first elected there in 1944. With the exception of two relatively short interregnums under Ross Thatcher and Grant Devine they've been in power ever since. Good ideas, competent and effective government and decent organization can be effective and successful. God knows, a few thousand votes cast differently in the last provincial election here in BC and we'd be talking about Premier James and not the Pt Grey ghost.

A coalition is a completely different kettle of fish than a merger. I'd support that. Heck, I supported the NDP working with Martin in the last parliament until Martin refused to do more.

Nope. If progressives truly believe in their principles they won't jettison them simply to elect a lesser evil than Harper. We're free to do that as individuals, abandon the NDP and vote Liberal but we have all learned that doesn't work. Voting Lib does not bring NDP principles inside the Lib tent, they simply assume they have us now and turn their attention back to battling the Cons among the swing voters between those parties.

What you're saying here however is surrendering. Giving up our political vehicle and joining the Libs who, in my opinion, under leaders like Martin are just as dangerous.

As I said before, would the Cons abandon their party and merge with the Libs and consider it a victory? Some on the right would but those further to the right would balk.

The Libs didn't fight deep integration too hard either.

We need a political vehicle to get our ideas on the national radar. Just as the Greens do too although at 4% its doubtful they're having much sucess at that.

Nice Analysis Guys, I've had a power outage, so my opus is now just dissagregated and dissapated electromagnetism (a lot of my writing comes accross that way)

I am really pressed for time, so here is what I've got together so far....

Frank makes an important distinction between some NDP members and other leftists that will only support left-wing goals.

Frank understands that in many ways the provincial parties overlap so that in theory the leader of the Liberals could potentially be more to the left than a potential leader of the NDP. But he understands the value of preserving a more pure left-wing voice in the Federal Parliament. Most Canadians are deeply grateful for the incredible contributions to the Nation's social fabric that had their genesis in the CCF, NDP and other leftist movements/parties.

The social and economic critique of Marxism/Socialism is where the true value of the left endures. It's prescriptive authority is, baring a few exceptions, where it becomes highly questionable. We will allways need highly principled individuals to hold our collective feet to the fire. It is much easier to be principled without the responsibility or temptations of Power. When the stench and shame grow too strong to ignore, Power must attend or fall. In that way correct principles do translate into power.

What often stand's out to me, and both Frank and GWest offer examples of it, is a particularly Leftist sensibility of integrity and purity. Frank talks of selling out. GWest talks of Opportunists. It reminds me of a recent BC NDP premier who hated liberals because they didn't stand for anything. The right might appear under the dominance of evangelism, but the Left has always been somewhat akin to religion. There is a blind faith on the left in the left that, until the rise of the religious right, was really unique in politics. This faith is not entirely without basis.

There is an old political saying that after the speeches and the slogans, and the reporters have left, the Liberals and Tories like to party down and get crazy, but the NDP'ers just quietly go home. I had a socialist upbringing, and perhaps if you were also you might know what I mean by the phrase "Socialist Puritan". At the same time, the left does not hold a monopoly, or even a very steady grip, on virtue. Even great men like Dave Stupich can fall.

Nevertheless, Tommy Douglas never really anticipated the incredible growing costs of our modern welfare state. The burden must be shouldered by a vibrant economy. what Mr. Martin did not answer was how we were going to manage that. The left hasn't said how we are going to ensure the bureacracy delivers value for the dollar. The right says just privatize.

That is to say "The social and economic critique from Marxism/Socialism..."

Well, perhaps, in this case, to some degree, the right is right. Nobody cares that the doctor they go see owns or is part of a private practice. The government sets the rates and pays the bills and collects our premiums.

The real world needs balanced solutions. We can hear from the Left and the Right, and the Greens, and the primary industries, and the independent business people and cooperatives and the Unions, and the Farmers, and the Libertarians, and the Community activists and the Volunteers and everybody else that doesn't fit nicely on a left-right spectrum, but then we need to try solutions and measure how well they work, and tweak them and manage them with open hearts and minds.

The fact that there are members at different points on the political spectrum in each of the parties can lend itself to fantasies of how those members, re-configured, could change the dynamics of power in Parliament. In eventful times, those members do re-configure.

However there are good reasons for each party to be host to a wide segment of the spectrum. Individuals make their own calculus about where their interests can best be promoted. The people GWest dismissively refers to as "right wing opportunists and business flunkies" in the liberal parties are actually key constituents of that party. Many people in Canada are open-minded enough to want to work with people that they don't completely agree with, and who can provide valuable alternative outlooks.

Parties dedicated to the left or the right are often about as useful as Cars that can either only go to the left or to the right. Sometimes, by coincidence, such cars turn out to be going in the right direction. Similarly, a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Sometimes, Nixon can go to China, but that is the exception, not the rule.

When someone is correct, it doesn't matter what direction they are coming from or going toward. When you buy a car, you need it to be able to drive in the direction you need to go. You rarely know which way that will be in advance. When you elect a government, you want it to be able to respond and lead in the correct direction in relation to the issue of the day.

Canada is a great place because it has been governed by parties that could adapt to circumstances and events more often than they could not.

tcahill
Sorry to hear you're underelectrified. I was busy all morning too and got waylaid at lunch time with someone who doesn't (or won't) read on another thread up the page.

If you don't mind I'll respond quickly to Frank and then come back to your words later.
chrs

tcahill,

Actually the party dedicated to the right is more than useful. Its the national government.

What you're saying is that the left should surrender and become centrists because Canada only has time for centrists and rightists. Nope, I'd rather be the only member of a left-wing party. Better to be ignored as an NDP'er and stick to your beliefs than be ignored as a marginalized member of the Libs.

Same goes for the Greens, better they stay true to the environmental policies they espouse than join the Libs or Cons and be ignored and be forced to support anti-environment policies out of fear of some other guy.

I would say Canadians do not elect non-political governments that do whatever is the correct thing. They elect people that are simply flag carriers of particular faces of laissez faire capitalism. That is the extent of thinking that goes on in this country. Every answer to every problem that confronts us will have a laiseez-faire capitalist solution. There will not be any thinking done outside that narrow ideological band.

I would rather stay outside that band and have a political vehicle that bends at the knee for laissez-faire but still puts forward ideas based on the lessons of the past and which is willing to criticize capitalism itself.

I doubt most Canadians are grateful. On the right many see the CCF/NDP as a cancer as any reading of the papers in Calgary will tell you. In the middle the Libs pretty muchc take credit for those things themselves.

Its not blind either. In fact, I would accuse the right of being the ones blinded by an unfailing faith in their leaders and principles even when they change. Mulroney? They never heard of him, none of them voted for him and how dare the left paint Harper with that brush for example. Free trade? It must be good, it was a right-wing policy. You question it and all you get back is rhetoric.

He didn't have to. He knew that as long as you make decisions based on what the poor and average joes need you can't be too wrong.

And we will take the privatize route even though the right can't defend it very well. Which is what I alluded to above when I said there is a lack of thinking outside the box in this country. The right will always choose "market" ideas and will always claim its the only path and they are the only ideology Canadians support as national governments. Joining them is not the answer, criticism is a better option than collaboration.

Frank
First of all, forgive me for not posting quotes; since you’ve already done that I think it would just get in the way and make this unnecessarily long. Don’t take it as a sign of disrespect.

I think we agree on a coalition may then. But a much more formal and public coalition, in my opinion, than the loose arrangements the NDP has had with previous Liberal govts. If the majority of the seats (assuming that the 2 parties together achieve a majority) go to the Liberals then they’d provide the Prime Minister – that’s probably unavoidable. Thus, whom they choose as their leader is, in the final analysis a critical element in all of this. The NDP would have to have at least a pro-rata share of Cabinet seats including a couple of key ones like health and at least one of the financial portfolios as well as deputy pm. I assume all of this must be worked out, not in detail, but in general terms, long before the election is called.

If there is going to be a formal coalition the voters deserve to know what they’re going to be getting if they vote either Liberal or NDP and the NDP would be in a position, if the coalition comes to power, of being legitimately able to claim credit for positive achievements – unlike the backhanded credit they got from Liberal governments in the past.

Why would supporting a coalition during the election necessitate abandoning one’s principles if the terms of the deal are spelled out in advance? I can see why you reacted the way you did to my post because I used the term ‘whatever's necessary’. I should have made it clear that I meant ‘whatever’s necessary short of abandoning one’s principles’ – that’s what I meant but I didn’t make it clear – mea culpa.

I agree the party can’t be surrendered but I don’t think that’s necessary, as spelled out above. I think I know what you’re driving at. Strategic voting would mean that many NDP voters would have to hold their nose and vote Liberal. The reciprocal would be true for many traditional Liberal voters too. In addition, everything I’ve advanced is based upon a worst case scenario that may not come to pass. Harper’s first few mindless missteps make me hope I’m worrying about nothing.

As to the deep integration file, no question – my clear assumption is that the corporatist wing of the liberal party is already lost to the Conservatives so, unless there is a big resurgence in Liberal popularity and some indication that they might be able to unseat Harper on their own it’ll stay there. It sure wouldn’t come back if the coalition plans were public and up front and in my opinion, good riddance.

Definitely agree on the necessity of a viable political vehicle. Just think this, or some variation on this, may be at least worth working a bit more intensively on. I think that is Ryan’s idea anyway and in the end how important is a name, really?

I’m sure not prepared to surrender the principles that got me through the first 50 years of my life but I’d like to think that they could get a bit more traction during the next 50.

Nope, Frank, I'm saying please, carry on. Canada has benefited from the participation of the Left in Politics. We have a debt to the left, acknowledged or not, as the conscience of the nation. I'm as much against a merger of the NDP and the Liberals as you seem to be.

tcahill
I’m not interested, as I said before, in utopias. In my opinion they have a strong historical tendency to become dystopias, funnily enough, I think even Thomas More knew that when he wrote the book. It sounded awfully bloody boring to me.

As for preserving pure left-wing voices in the Parliament as the conscience of the place – been there, done that! We’ve had a supposedly pure, supply-side fundamentalist evangelical ethical Christian Prime Minister for less than two months and he’s not saying a thing – have you noticed. The thing that’s required to be the conscience of the House is that you’re in opposition, period.

Give me practical guys with decent principles who didn’t get where they are just because of their business or family connections any time. Purity’s crap. I just want someone who’s not afraid to tell the truth and admit when he screws up. Moreover, I want somebody who, as Tommy Douglas would say (since you brought him up again) is not a cat.

As for the social gospel, I’m not too enamored with that either. Did you know Douglas wrote his graduate thesis on eugenics? It was only after he spent some time working with the poor and unemployed in Chicago that he realized it was a bunch of garbage and disowned it. In addition, he had to quit the church before he ran for parliament in the 30s.

You’ve been out of circulation too long if you think the left doesn’t know how to party either – maybe gout does that to a fella.

As for health care costs, Tommy Douglas was one hell of a hard worker and extremely dedicated and he expected the same from his civil servants. The health care situation, given decent funding, is far from irredeemable - but if we ever let the private sector start to pick off the easy stuff for profit and leave the rest of the mess – long-term care – cancer treatment, etc. for the public system we’ll be in the same mess Britain is before you can take an aspirin.

I think the business interests would be better off in one party and if that happens because of Harper’s win, it will be a good thing in my opinion. It would be much clearer then where everybody stands and you wouldn’t have the damn cats collecting all the cream no matter who’s in power. Further, some of the so-called small – l liberals left behind might actually discover they have a backbone and that they believe in something again. So don’t expect me to accept your claim that business and corporate interests are doing their fellow citizens a great favour by spending a few years in government.

No hard feelings though, it’s been fun.

Whatever, GWest. I don't easily overlook such spurious attacks. It just tells me that we can't do much more than talk past each other.

tcahill
Whoa!
Methinks the gentleman protests too much. I have no way of knowing how you vote. This was a purely intellectual exercise, not in any way meant to be personal. The anonymity of the internet is both a curse and a blessing I guess.

Small-l liberal is a philosophy (liberalism), not a vote. I am not a Liberal. I am a liberal. Much of what I've written in these posts is based on a liberal approach to things. When you attack liberals you attack me. We do stand for a great deal. After all, we live in a liberal democracy. We live in a liberal society. That's our foundation and I'm proud of it. Liberals fought fascism. Liberals fought the Church. Liberals fought the aristocracy. Liberals fought the Mercantilists.

I have read your writings at length about the solitary virtues of the left, and I have acknowledged the great contributions of the left, and I have tried to gently remind you of the great legacy in this country that is not in any way due to the strivings of the left. I'm just fed up with the left this and the left that, and everybody else is an opportunist or a traitor. Give it a rest!

Oh yeah, liberals fought slavery. Socialism has been an excuse to enslave and slaughter. Try to have some perspective!

tcahill
I told you I'm neither Liberal nor NDP, remember! Don't be so sensitive. You know damn well I meant people who just comfortably go along with things. If you put yourself in that category that’s your problem, not mine

But it is time for a lot of people, including myself, to stand up and be counted and stop resting on other peoples’ laurels. I think we’re in real trouble and, as Douglas always said, it's time for the mice to stick together and vote in a government of mice - not cats.

Most of the large L Liberal legacy in this country is arguably the result of M J Coldwell and W S Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis having the chutzpah not to succumb to the pleasant blandishments of one or another Liberal Prime Minister starting with Mackenzie King who was more than prepared to steal their good ideas at the same time he facilitated and encouraged Frederick Charles Blair to keep refugee Jews out of this country during and just before the war.

Credit where credit's due.

And as for your dig about socialism, that shows a real lack of perspective too. I'd say the dictators who were doing the slaughtering were Bolsheviks, Communists and Fascists - never democratic socialists. The one thing those guys didn’t have time for was real debate.

And now neoliberals (which is the label every academic applies to neocons everywhere but in the States) are busy subverting every decent and generous 'liberal' principle you seem to believe in. Slogans and name calling don't ever get us very far, do they?

tcahill
I should say one more thing, to make you feel a little better if nothing else. I hail from rural Saskatchewan and the taint of Jimmy Gardiner and the fiefdom he made of that poor place played a big part in fashioning the bits and pieces that made me the person I am. My family has a long memory and I lost two grandparents needlessly to the depression. When the CCF was elected in 1944 they burned or threw out every record and shred of paper in every ministry in Regina and they did everything they could to sabotage Douglas's efforts to get the financing he needed to try and bring the province into the 20th century. That, combined with Ross Thatcher and Grant Devine, has a tendency to concentrate one's mind.
I'm sure there's the odd decent liberal out there but their sense of entitlement is a bit rich for my blood most of the time.

Let's be clear. I'm a small-l liberal. You say we have no backbone. This is strickly ad hominem, so fair is fair. The gloves are off.

Again, you've danced past the point of your own prejudice and offence. You simply are not capable of acknowleging anything but your own bias. At least your hostility to the liberal tradition is unmasked.

You have not managed to respond to any of the substance of my argument other than to summarize them as

.

According to you, we leapt straight out of the stone age into the post-modern age, catapulted by the singular accomplishments of Coldwell, Woodsworth, Douglas and Lewis.

You say small-l liberals have no backbone, but what is this?

You nearly gave yourself whiplash with that statement. What does it mean? It's nonsense. Principals dictate necessity, even if the principal is survival. There is an infinite amount of slippery slope in "whatever's necessary". I don't detect any principles, just a litany of negativity: how everybody you disagree with is at fault.

I put myself in the category of people that don't comfortably go along with fools, but I can comfortably disagree, but I've had more meaningful dialog and less abuse with the Jehovas Witnesses that come by my house then I can get out you.

tcahill
I meant, quite plainly, that I was willing to make common cause with Liberals in order to confront what I clearly postulated was an ostensible danger to all people of goodwill in this country. That was a lot more than my friend Frank was prepared to do.

I have no problem with rank and file liberals at all - but I have a great deal of difficulty with those liberals of a corporate bent who see themselves as so entitled that anything they 'do' for the poor, the downtrodden and the benighted is somehow akin to bestowing largesse from on high. I'm not surprised you are offended; you have a lot to be offended for if that's the kind of person you are.

No one in a democracy has the right to claim once and for all that they alone have the keys to the kingdom - it's that kind of religious fervor that gives theism a bad name.

As for negativity I have no problem with appreciating a lot of what Pierre Trudeau did for this country and I'd give a tip of the hat to Laurier too if I met him on the street. I'd have a drink with John A. and I'd buy Abraham Lincoln dinner in the best joint in town. Is that enough praise for you. But every one of those heros had feet of clay too and only idiots ignore their feet. As for Jimmy Gardiner, I’m pretty certain he’s in the other place so I hope I won’t be meeting him any time soon.

The problem is some people get too tied up with their identification with a political party and forget what politics is mostly all about - that is, staying in power.

I thought you were mature enough to have an interesting discussion with and I still think that's possible but not unless you take the chip off your shoulder.

I'd be happy to have an interesting discussion. It just seems I've got to read you the riot act before you will give any ground. I don't think you'd have granted any grace to Trudeau, Laurier, of the rest if I hadn't badgered you into it. You think you can use a shotgun approach to what you find fault with, then when you hit someone, say "don't be so sensitive".

You can hardly

if you're going to persist in trying to drive an inflammatory wedge into the middle of them.

You're still not coming clean about shotgun barrel one that you used to hit all right wing Liberals with the accusation of being opportunists and business flunkies and shotgun barrel two where small l-liberals have no backbones.

If you want to have an interesting conversation with me it not going to be one that lets any mental laziness or sloppy attacks slide by. (I don't have to be a right wing Liberal to think it is just a goofy attack to launch) Now, the liberals you take umbrage against are not all right wing Liberals or small-l liberals, it seems, just

So who is this caricature supposed to be? Oh...

Really. Here, let me help you with that. Yeah, you got me. How high my largesse is bestowed from! I'm dictating this memo to one of my private physician/masseuse/valets while my toes are being done. I've paid a lot of money to the Canadian Medical Association to ensure they would continue to refuse accreditation for foreign trained doctors. I can hire them for a song! And if they wont do what my craven little mind desires, I can just fire their ungrateful butts and have my buddy, the minister of immigration get them deported !

Meanwhile back here on earth, one of my earlier reiterations on how I disagree develops the theme of how more broad-minded people actually seek out a coalition representing a wide spectrum of political and economic thought, out of a belief that it takes such a coalition to properly represent our diverse nation.

I don't imagine you would have any luck reaching them without undergoing a serious PR makeover.

Actually, I wish someone like Ann Coulter would weigh in. I'd much rather flay that kind of twit.

Peace.

tcahill

I'm afraid you've lost me. It's perfectly fine for you to insult me - I won't take any more time to bother going back and quoting chapter and verse because you clearly wouldn't acknowledge it anyway - but when I try to elaborate why I think a lot of Liberals (and not you personally) have a bad reputation - and not just on this website - you come unstuck at me. I won't stoop to that my friend. But just where did that whole thing about doctors and immigrants come from?

My point is, no one should expect any political party to get a free ride forever because Pierre Trudeau brought home our constitution and tried to ensure that minorities had their civil rights respected. If you feel you have to take responsibility for everything the Liberal party's done or failed to do I think you have a serious problem to deal with. Nobody's required to do that - ever. We need to be responsible for our own behavior and ourselves. I don't think I said anything that should have offended you in the extreme way it seems I have. You may disagree with what I wrote but you'd be wrong if you thought I bore you personally any ill will.

I think it's important to be able to discuss things and be frank. I feel the way I do about the Liberal party and its history for reasons that are part of my own personal history. You seem to think that all Liberals are saints. I'm not sure if that's because you willfully ignore their shortcomings or because you're angry that anyone should point them out.

Anyway, if I had known you'd be so upset I'd never have started this discussion. Believe that or not, it's up to you.

You might be surprised how often an inveterate critic like me finds himself standing up for Pierre Trudeau by the way.

ann coulter , now there is a wingnut !

there is no compromise in that little mind and that is what politics needs,compromise.

unfortunately all politicians who really believe in their party ethos never open their minds enough to compromise...because compromise means...you lose,the other wins.it's narrow mindedness that people are cursed with that stops the world from progression

the superego is a bitch to overcome and you need only look at the psuedo intellectuals that people the parties in our political systems.

when there are people who do know how to compromise they are considered weaker thans.
the ndp are considered weaker thans and the libs are opportunistic superegos,how anyone can posite a collective is beyond me.

then again strange bedfellows and politics ! always a good topic

something like extraterrestrial life forms.

GWest: Doctors and immigrants was a joke at both of our expense. You wanted to paint me into a corner with those big bad liberals, and I thought I'd run with it, like yeah, right, I'm a big bad Liberal, and send up what your take on a venal Liberal opportunist Business Flunky might be spoofed as. I thought it was funny in a "this hour has 22 minutes kind of way".

You can go ahead and play up the Liberal's bad reputation, but that's a funny way of furthering your desire to work with them.

If you think your attack on small-l liberal values is at all confused with me needing to defend the Liberal Party, you have a powerful reality-distortion field at work.

We don't need to agree on what I seem to think. You need to be challenged firmly because you refuse to be more precise in your targets.

There are a lot of credible reasons to criticize the Liberal record. There is just a minimum standard of care and attention one should apply in being specific and accurate if the objective is credibility. If you just want to make wild passionate statements, don't expect to be given gentle treatment from me.

tcahill
Gentle! buddy you ain't laid a hand on me! I've been nice up to now, believe me. You're the one who's been making wild passionate statements up to now. You want to see passion? All right, I’ll give you passion.
I see politics for what it is.
The art of the possible. Ideologues like Harper scare me. He's not in it for the money like most Liberals and Conservatives are. If you wanted me to get down and dirty about some of the things the Liberals have done I could certainly do it – but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't once mention any of the painful and morally challenged things that the last two Liberal administrations have been up to their necks in. I don't think anyone is served by bringing up specifics everybody knows about.

I think a lot of people who vote nothing but Liberal fool themselves into thinking they're doing it for altruistic reasons when they're actually doing it because it'll help their businesses or find them a job.

I'm nothing like that. I want a government that believes in something other than power. I want a government that will protect little people and ordinary working people who aren't rich enough or strong enough to protect themselves and a government who won't constantly knuckle under to special interests. I want a government that cares more about people than corporations, one that recognizes ends are important but won't resort to any means to get them. Above all, I want a Canada where every citizen has as close to an equal chance of success and happiness as every other citizen no matter what colour, religion or sexual persuasion they happen to be. I want a Canada where no child has to go to bed hungry - especially when there are people who have too damn much to eat and I want a country where the tax system works to try to make that a reality. That's what I'm passionate about and if I could enter a coalition to get it I don't think I'd be compromising my principles one bit. I think the chance of ever gaining these unlikely goals diminishes every day that Stephen Harper is Prime Minister of this big cold country and I'm going to do everything I can to see that he doesn't last any longer than necessary. He wants to turn this country into a small minded, tight-fisted ungenerous mean-spirited country where one class of people lord it over all the rest of us and tell us how to live. He wants a country where people are closed-up, critical and inward looking, a country where every region hangs on to what it has and begrudges everything to anyone else. A country where the people who have money are free to say screw you to their poorer neighbours who have to wait in line for essential services like health care. You may think I'm just critical but you'd be wrong. I want to be proud of my country again. And not just because some privileged kids came back from the Olympics with a few gold medals. Or because a hockey team won a game or two. I want to be proud of this country because I think we are different here, I think we have passion and a commitment to caring that sets us apart and I think that's worth fighting for before Stephen Harper and his of small-minded clones ruin it.
If the Liberals actually believed that, I'd be a Liberal tomorrow - but they don't - and the way Davey Emerson scuttled beetle-like across the floor to into Stephen Harper's effusive but passionless Mona Lisa embrace ought to be enough to convince even you of that.

In Saskatchewan a few years ago a Liberal MLA wanted to cross the floor and join the NDP. The Premier wouldn't let him and insisted he stand for nomination and run in the next election as a member of the party. That's what happened, that's character. That's what I'm talking about.

OK, a quick read, so far you're being nice. I'll keep reading, but ...

What's that got to do with me? What's that got to do with small-l liberals, and the distinction between Liberals you could work with and others you couldn't?

In your long paragraph there are two things: what you passionately desire, and what you passionately fear.

I'm sure most Canadians would agree with what you desire.

Was that in one of his brochures or news releases? I missed where he said that.

You have to read between the lines - and take a look at his MPs websites - and listen to the fulminations of the people who vote for him.

I don't believe in the Devil. I think your caricature of Stephen Harper is a nightmare, and maybe you just need to wake up from it. The things that you see in him really do exist in this Country already, independent of him, and always have. He may very well represent all of that to you, but it is very early days to be outlining what his legacy will be. It may be worse than I'll admit, but it will probably not be so bad as you fear.

The country tossed the last Conservative regime into the trash heap of history, and the only legacy I see from their time in office is the Bloc Quebecois. Harper's most significant moves to date seem to be aimed at trying to repair the breach Mulroney created in Quebec by trying to sleep with the separatists. I hope Harper can help rebuild strong Federalist sentiment in Quebec. The Liberals seemed helpless to do anything about it.

You got upset merely because I said small-l Liberals lacked backbone - why would I want to get into all the specifics of what Martin and Chretien actually did or didn't do over the last 12 years?

You got upset because you interprered my remarks as attacking every classical liberal thinker and philospher since Locke and Hume. If you were going to get that upset over generalities, what would you do about specifics?

Do you still think I lack backbone?

Saying I lack a backbone is pretty specific.

tcahill
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about a class of people that I wanted to make a political point about – you took it personally, that’s because of the gloss you put on it, not because I was out to insult you, but I already told you that. People come on this site and call me a pinko lefty ideological commie freak quite frequently – and directly. If I’d wanted to insult you I’d have done it. I don’t have long discussions with them – I ignore them or tell them, as wittily as I can what I think of their intellect – what little intellect they actually have. But I don’t call them names although I may play some little games with the labels they’ve given themselves. In a way they’re kind of like mosquitoes, annoying, but not a real problem and I know, for the most part, some of the less humane folks around here will soon step in and swat them. No problem.

Look. In order to have a discussion about ideas one needs to be a little dispassionate about things. For example, look at Frank's and my discussions. We state our premises and comment on where we agree or disagree with respect to the various points that each person advances. In the end we agree on some things, disagree on others and then we move on. It's not necessary for either party to see himself as a winner or loser -- as long as no one takes any of the remarks personally.

You can see it all the time in posts to this site. As long as disagreement is civil and nobody gets the impression that there's someone behind a persona who's belittling someone else's ideas its okay and quite civil and even humorous – even in cases where one party thinks the others’ ideas are crap.

I certainly didn't mean you to take my remark about spineless liberals who ‘come along just to get along’ personally because I had no way of knowing that you were, a) a liberal or , b) so sensitive on that issue. I thought we were talking about ideas and concepts and not necessarily beliefs. But you can see I have strong beliefs too, as I've just tried to illustrate and I also told you, and I hope you accept it, that I really didn't mean you to take my remarks personally. I’ve told you what I actually do feel strongly about so you’d realize that I wasn’t trying to be some kind of cold cynic while you were busy spilling your emotional guts out.
(cont'd below)

That's the problem with this kind of communication, it doesn't admit of much nuance. Face to face, if we were sharing a beer down the pub, we'd probably get along famously. I'd say something like 'You're a bugger for the obvious', and smile broadly and you'd know I was just being friendly and not offensive. But if I type words that have no deeper meaning than a way to illustrate a general idea there is always a danger that they'll be taken too literally. We can't write a novel that would provide an accompanying interior monologue to go along with the narrative so everyone who reads it would know what's actually on our minds. So, from time to time people get into trouble and start insulting each other and one thing leads to another and pretty soon they're using UPPER CASE LETTERS AND A LOT OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!

See what I mean. This kind of discourse requires care. My approach is generally not to get personal - to just stick to ideas because all anybody sees of me is this typescript. In a way I like that because it allows me time and space to think about what I want to write and to avoid getting emotional – unless some emotion is required in order to illustrate a point that I’m trying to make. Also, you don't really know anything about me - you don't even really know whether I'm a man or a woman, how old I am or anything particular about me. Everything I’ve said tonight could be a complete fabrication. You've told me you have gout and that you live on Saltspring but that's all I know about you. Everything both of us assume we know about the other could be an elaborate mask. But ideas, that's another thing. In that realm, neither of us has to hold back and that's how I use this space - to debate ideas - never specific personalities. The minute one of us says something personal the communication ends, everything from that point on is either aggressive or defensive, and that's what should be avoided, in my opinion.

GWest,

There is nothing wrong with a coalition. An NDP party can remain a voice for the left while getting along with the other boys and girls in a coalition. Its a merger I'm against.

If we're looking at 3 or 4 times as many Lib seats as NDP then the Libs would get the prime minister and finance minister and most of the the others including Defence, Foreign and Int'l trade. The NDP should take Health, Adv Education and Industry, Trade and Commerce.

But, in my opinion, the key NDP demand has to be electoral reform.

I would hope you agree since the basis of your coalition/merger sympathies are based on stopping the Cons.

Well, with some semblance of Pro-Rep the Cons would never form a majority gov't again although they could still finish first now and then and be parts of governing coalitions themselves. Which is fine.

I figured I wouldn't criticise him until he does something but I don't like his tentative moves on the fed-prov balance. If d'Aquino is smiling then its bad for everyone else.

They'll come back, they have no political allegiance it seems, just attracted by power.

Frank
You summed up WWII history on the Eastern Front nicely for a small post.

Now what I find interesting about people here and their response to Harper, is that Harper is probably the closest we have had as a average Joe for the PM. Regardless of his politics, I think his experience in being part of day to day life will be a positive. I feel that most of our senior politicians over the last 15 years have been completely out of touch with the day to day needs of the people.

G West and tcahill, a interesting debate, will have to come back and read it again.

Frank
Guess we're pretty much in agreement then. You're right about corporate power. If the 'old' liberals regain their position they'll be there with bells on. Cats are always going to be cats. Making a coalition contingent on electoral reform is going to be a tough one for many Liberals to swallow. The situation, sadly, may have to get a lot worse with respect to the principles involved before there is any consensus on that point. In the end, unfortunately, a lot of the potential for progress is going to hinge on what kind of leader the Liberals elect. Given the way Harper’s handlers are shutting out the media there may be some opportunities for curious and free thinking journalists – I was thinking of someone like Chantal Hebert – to do some good work and Richard Gwyn today is making some sensible noise on health care – surprise, surprise.

In the interim, the anti-democratic tendencies of the current Prime Minister - especially in respect of the Emerson file - are like a gift for those who want to see real change. He's making the case for us – as are the citizens of V-K who appear to be unwilling to let this go. A big hat tip to them! The danger is that Harper will try to sell Senate reform as a democratic panacea and that further advances republicanism and the Ottawa vs the Provinces question, in my opinion.
Cheers.

Thanks, it was frustrating trying to get my point across without writing a small book.

So do I. But I wouldn't stop at 15 years and am wondering why you did :-)

In the sense that he has a wife and little kids, sure, I'll give you that. But he hasn't worked at real jobs and nor did PM. He's been a full-time politico-type when you look at his National Citizen's Coalition work and prior to that his work within Reform.

For me of course the big problem is his ideology is so different from my own. My view of what I want Canada to be like just doesn't fit with a decentralized, loose even, federation of provinces free to go their own way on issues and nor do I share his devotion to the mystical properties of the market.

Is it scary for me? Somewhat I admit, especially as he's now found natural allies in the Bloc. I accept that you and other fellow Canadians voted for him and I like to think you know what you're doing but at this point I'm pretty sure the overall effect is going to be worse than Martin or Mulroney and I'm bracing myself for that.

frank ,last two paragraphs are as succint as one can get when describing the FEAR most Canadians have of Harper et al.

i guess thats why a thread like this can exercise the minds that visit.

and the last point about the deleterious effects...there are many out here that echo your position.the old proverb "sow the wind,reap the whirlind" comes to mind everytime i hear/see Harper open his mouth.

this thing with the Ethics Commisioner should scare the bejeebers out of all,left ,centre ,right ,green,independant,every damn one of us.

I want to come back to something Frank said earlier regarding the legacy of the left's social contributions...

Coming from BC with its long history of extreme polarization, I think a lot of what Frank refers to sounds like the empty opposition posturing that rallied the vote, but would be quietly forgotten in power. Politics is a whole lot of theater carried on while running or criticizing the running of the country. The very best theater seems plausible and can stimulate opinion that can lead to the rise or fall of Political Parties.

Behind the theater, where the real work gets done, BC's NDP gave us several innovations such as the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Islands Trust, and ICBC, to name a few, which provoked near insurrection from business and opposition leaders who denounced these blatent Government intrusions into the free market. The Fire and Brimstone still echoes in my mind.

The NDP's few short years were succeeded by two decades of Social Credit during which very few of the Socialist's measures to interfere in the free market where undone. Despite some very heavy-handed adjustments, the institutions survive to the present day. Why didn't these Right wing governments overturn the Socialist innovations? Because they were good ideas. The succeeding governments adapted their theatrics and gradually took the innovations as their own.

In a very real sense, the left and the right need each other to do one another's dirty work. The right can't very well implement glaringly necessary controls on the unfettered free market without alienating their base. But they also don't just wade in and repudiate all market restrictions if they assume power after a period of social and economic innovation. (Despite the outcry to that effect by the left)

In same way, the left stakes so much on it's commitment to protect the most vulnerable, that it cannot effectively reform wasteful and poorly prioritized legacies without the public sector unions walking out and hamstringing them, and the rank and file in the party pushing for a convention to sack the leader. The left needs the big bad right wing to do the nasty stuff that keeps the economy running and the books balanced.

It doesn't have to be that way. Here is my long paragraph.

One liberal agenda would have Canada governed at the consent of a broad consensus. The very best individuals from across the spectrum would be selected to fill the key roles of government. Corrupt or incompetent officials would be quickly discovered and removed or their parties defeated. Dedicated social, health and civic activists would carefully craft finely targeted programs that work toward the elimination of poverty, restoration of the community fabric in our towns and cities and the delivery of preventative, diagnostic and pallative health care. One of the strongest mandates would be, with empowered and enriched Provinces on side, the reform of the many lingering injustices in the law and the land that have prevented fair and sustainable access to Canada's vast resources. All of this could be paid for because the finest economists and business minds would regularly rotate through government and constantly tinker with market policies and regulations to ensure our clean, safe and fairly taxed competitive industries have surpluses overflowing in the treasury. Canada's Aboriginals would fully benefit from a consititutionally guarenteed partnership with the rest of Canada, and would benefit the rest of Canada with their many contributors to our culture and economy. Our Foreign Affairs and Armed Forces would export Canada's values and culture as central elements of their missions to assist in development and security tasks around the globe.

Thanks Thomas.

From a Tyee link I just read that someone sold the port of Churchill to an American for $7 ????

I think I'm going to have a coronary.

tcahill
Sounds like dreaming in Technicolor utopian thinking to me. If there's a heaven it may be like that - but I'd suggest it would end up being a lot more like Huxley's ‘Brave New World’ here on earth.
I trust ordinary people more than you seem to. Exporting values has gotten the United States into an almost unimaginable mess in the Middle East and from a lot of the rose hued reporting I’m hearing from Kandahar these days I fear we may be getting ourselves into the same quagmire. I hope not, but I’m beginning to wonder how far you can go with Pollyanna as your sidekick. I can’t imagine that you’re serious, it’s a satire, right!

You're suggesting you can change human nature but right now people are tired of the nanny state and you're trying to get them to buy back into an even more pervasive one.

When I was young, before the last ice age, I went to the Seattle World's Fair (early 60s) and all the pavilions there were touting a 'world of tomorrow' that would be realized before the end of the century. It included flying cars, an end to automobile accidents, no more cancer, poverty gone forever and no more wars - you get the picture. The year 2000 arrived and all we have is bloody computers everywhere. It's a big innovation - but the rest of the stuff, well, we're still working on it and people are still dying from tuberculosis, malaria and river blindness in their scores. I'll take my changes the old way and not rely on a technocratic liberal pipe dream, thank you very much.
No disrespect though.
Cheers.

Yes, it is utopian, I've been busy re-writing it because I don't like it either.

tcahill - i like the post!

You are right - the left and right need each other. I believe the current NDP are doing a great job, of holding a more right-wing government accountable.

They are doing a phenominal job as opposition, and are providing the necessary checks and balances. I give Carole James great credit. She has been critical and raised many concerns, and done so in an effective manner. She has been positive and polite.

However, I have always believe the NDP makes a great opposition, but a terrible government. Socialists are very critical by nature and even more idealogical. However, while their ideas work well in theory, they often don't work in practice.

The NDP in opposition can caution the people and provide valuable criticism - which keeps the right from running away!

However, you get them trying to run things on their own - and you get complete disaster. The NDP has evolved in Manitoba as a centrist party. However, may never be able to do so in BC given the numbers of militant left-wingers in our province!!

Frank - saw your consternation about the story you mentioned seeing re Port of CHurchill. Thought I'd just check it up this morning - if you're by here today could you stop and drop a trail of crumbs for me.
Cheers

the german rag SPIEGAL ran that story ,it's on this page/site

i remember my days as a youth at camp using that paper to wipe my butt,vatti said that was the only thing that rag was good for.

Thanks Thomas
I'll see if I can find it w/out a trail of crumbs.
What are you drinking these days? Have you ever tried Karlovarska Becherovka?

So I guess you could say, for Pat Broe of Denver, that it's an ill-wind that blows nobody good, eh!

that story is the reason threads like the one we are on get well exercised.it highlights the real world need for a collective of like minds that know what's at stake.

this denver speculator is banking on global warming to make his fortune.of course the northern/polar route has always been a shippers dream.

and getting the raw resources to china and the cheap goods to the consuming public is paramount in the minds of the hucksters.

so as usual the ambulance chasing/the undertaker at the hanging,the speculator at our expense...it's typical human greed and opportunism at it's best/worse ?

small wonder so many are disenfranchised today ,who wants to claim kinship with this species ?

ooops ! there goes that misanthropic grouch in me again,arrggghhhh !