Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000

Subject: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,Jason K.
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:20 PM

The election campaign is on in Canada. We'll be voting on November 27.

On behalf of Stockwell Day, I'd like to invite all Canadian Mudcatters to join us in celebrating true Canadian values in the 21st Century by supporting the Canadian Alliance.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:28 PM

Better government in WetSuits!

A great platform, Go for it JasonK.

I'll think seriously about more general issues.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:31 PM

The alternatives are too frightening, have to vote for them Jason mate...Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: MK
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 08:48 PM

(When did Stockwell say hell was freezing over, Guest Jason K.?)

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,Albamist
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:38 PM

Okay Jason, tell me that you said that with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. If that guy represents "true Canadian values", and God forbid that he should ever win, then I would have to pack my families bags and set sail for the shores of Auld Scotia, from whence I came. The newly independent (almost) Scotland would seem like a haven of moderation and tolerance compared to the Canada that Mr Day would have us suffer. How can anyone vote for a guy called Stockwell anyway? I bet his real name is actually Jimmy or Bob or something This is a Great country that we live in, lets not waste it.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:41 PM

I think the Toronto Chapter of the Mudcat ought to form a party with Rick at the head under the banner:" A rosewood kazoo in every home".
RtS

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: hesperis
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:26 PM

Please define "true Canadian values".

And please define it as something other than running the poor and sick of our great country into the ground in order to give everything they could have had to the rich who don't even need half of what they've already got!

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:38 PM

Hesp: "True Canadian value" is about 66 cents on the dollar as of noon (Toronto time).

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Mooh
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:44 PM

Careful now Jason K, them there's fightin' words in these parts.

I take it that you suggest that to vote otherwise is to reject true Cdn values. Blarney bull shit.

I question the necessity of an election right now, but if one must be, let's look at humane, environmental, and compassionate purpose.

Mooh (who still thinks of Tommy Douglas as a hero).

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,John Leeder
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 04:29 PM

Hmmm... "Jason K." Purports to speak "on behalf of" Stockwell Day, inviting people to join "us" in the CA.

Are you in Calgary Southeast, by any chance?

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: pastorpest
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:14 PM

In the Essex riding where I live, the New Democrats nominated Marion Overholt, feminist lawyer, advocate for the poor,peace activist. Years ago I heard her say of the student lawyers she supervises in training, "We have to get to these students so they know they can practise law to do justice and not just see the call to the bar as a license to print money." Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! I have a candidate to vote for and support whole heartedly. Now if only we can get her to sing and play guitar.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:29 PM

Yikes! Stockwell Day equals "Canadian values"? Well, I guess if you wanna take Jesus outta the churches and into the nation's bedrooms...he's your guy.

By the way, Mudcat friends in other countries... We ain't got ANY choices here this time. Our leader, Jean Crouton is a raving loonie (safe though), The NDP (mildly socialist) gets about 3 percent, The Conservatives just appointed a leader who was bounced from their party 78 years ago, The Quebec Separatist party can't even SPELL Canada, and the Reform Party is mostly made up of bigots who can't spell period.

Am I joking? Only just.

Rick

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,MoohTooh (Mooh elsewhere than home)
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:06 PM

Rick, why so diplomatic? Jean the Cretin is likely to win and then he'll be able to retire on his own schedule, not the electorate's, which btw, is the only real reson he's called an election now.

Mooh (who's already tired of the race).

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:12 PM

I would really like to see anyone show anything from the (Reform party now Alliance party) platform that you can even remotely call bigoted. Have you even read their policy or are you just quoting CBC induced propaganda against them? Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:46 PM

Well Dave, I'm the guy who's twice recently said on Mudcat that I believe VERY strongly in reading and observing BOTH sides of an issue, so I GUARANTEE you I'm not swayed by the liberal CBC or the conservative National Post. Most of my views on the Reform/Alliance party come from various interviews, sound clips, news stories, Party platform, and election literature that they send out. My guess is that you and I would probably disagree more on what "constitutes a bigot" than whether either of us has his "facts wrong".

But you know...you're right, I shouldn't throw that word around so easily (even in a joking post). There has certainly been a fair amount of anti-immigrant, anti-French, and virulent anti-gay retoric, mixed with fundamentalist approaches to several other issues. They're too far to the right fer my tastes.

Rick

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:14 PM

Aye, Rick I'm definately a right wing Conservative. Having been a Canadian for twenty five years, I dont like the Liberals or The NDP or the Federal Conservatives. Time to change the old "party mentality" A new broom sweeps clean and in my opinion we desperately need to clean house. What other party offers us the chance? Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:16 PM

Bloc Quebecois?

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,Albamist
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:49 PM

Dave, Sometimes the new broom doesn't sweep clean but instead just makes a mess of things. If you were to look to your native Scotland (I suspect)after years under the Thatcher government which incidently came into power to sweep clean all that ailed society, you will find a society where the gap between the haves and the have nots has widened instead of shrinking. You will find a country where medical staff work hard and long in outdated facilities using equipment whose best before date has long since past. You will find schools and other public buildings looking the worse for wear as the local authorities do not have the resources due to cut backs in transfer payments from the central government. Due to the vast differences between rich and poor you will also find a country much less caring than it was 25 years ago. Hopefully the new Scottish government can turn this around. That is not a vision that I hope for Canada. Beware of the party that promises the earth, they simply turn into career politicians in the end. Forget also fiscal restraint, just remember that Ronald Rayguns was one of the most conservative governments in years and he increased government spending more than any other president for years while at the same time cutting back programmes that helped the poor. yours Aye Tam the Bam,

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:55 PM

And the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada are better? Sorry, I dont think so mate, the've had their chance... Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 01:37 AM

:) You guys sound positively American...

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Willie-O
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:22 AM

Stock Day revealed a bit of his true self yesterday, and of the nature of his campaign. By the way, "Jason K" would appear to be Jason Kenney, his young campaign chief and it doesn't surprise me to see him spamming all kinds of mediums like this one. The Alliance campaign team is SLICK.

So yesterday, Mr. Day spoke in Niagara Falls, remarking from his Alberta perspective that Lake Ontario drains into Lake Erie. (Something somewhat less likely to happen than hell freezing over.) When questioned about this remarkable display of geographical ignorance, he blamed his speechwriters! DUHHHHHHHH.

Like I said, they're slick, getting great graphics in his photo-ops, but the message is lacking in basic accuracy.

Dave, re: bigotry in the Alliance. They have been trying to crack into the Maritimes by exploiting anti-Native sentiment which has been thrown into ugly visibility by recent fisheries events. This is quite consistent with their policies towards native rights elsewhere, which are that there ain't no such thing, now that we've taken all their land away, they shouldn't get it back because that would be "race-based policy" and would be wrong.

Willie-O
gonna hold my nose and vote Liveral (typo intentional) because the "alternative" scares me badly.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sian, west wales
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 09:35 AM

One good thing about this debate is that I've actually pulled my finger out to start looking at the manifestos on Party sites (although, living in Wales, I won't be voting this time 'round). I started with the Alliance, as that seems to be the one hogging the current discussion.

My first impression is that Stockwell Day is counting on people not questioning what he's saying. And, yes, I know, this is what all politicians hope for. Now, just dealing with things about which I have some knowledge, I quote from the Alliance statement:

"... in recent years, other countries have been pulling ahead of Canada. In a survey of the 25 wealthiest OECD countries, Canada's growth in standard of living was ranked 24th over the past decade (1988-98). Ireland, which ranked first, has moved from having half of Canada`s per capita income to almost the same income level in a mere ten years. "

Governments and most politicians have an obsession with growth, GDP 'n' stuff - hugely problematic in terms of sustainable development (gosh - phrases I thought I'd never be caught dead using on Mudcat!). You have to really think what long term environmental and social repercussions will arise from "growth".

SD flags up Ireland, pretty sure that no one will question it too much. But Ireland had HUGE investments of European money - more than most North Americans could ever imagine - and that came from ... taxes! And so what if it's moved so quickly? That isn't a slight on Canada - Ireland had huge problems, and major subsidies from the European pot (coupled with vision and determination on the part of the Irish) have provided a lot of solutions. Of course, not for all of Ireland. I don't suppose SD mentions the fact that Irish success has provided a very high level of prosperity for the Dublin catchment area - markedly less for Western Ireland. Or that prosperity has actually had a negative impact on the poorest 10% of the population. Apply that to Canada as you will...

OK - sorry - I'll get off my high horse. But that's the kind of smoke screen that too many politicians use. And when I can see through the bits that I know about ... why should I trust the rest?

I guess that's my cue for looking up the others now!

Willie-O... according to the Globe the quote had something to do with likening the Canadian brain-drain to the USA, north to south, to Lake Erie's flow to Lake Ontario ... except the Niagara flows south to north. Yeh - I thought it was pretty sh*tty of him to blame his writers too! Isn't that the second time he's shot himself in the foot on the brain-drain theme in 48 hours? God preserve us! sian, west wales

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 11:39 AM

"A new broom sweeps clean"

Well, I know bugger all about Canadian politics - but that is the kind of slogan that makes my blood run cold. Makes me think of Maggie Thatcher. Hell, it makes me think of Adolf Hitler (I'm just talking about the slogan here, remember.)

If any politician is using a slogan like, I'd want to be very very certain indeed I had the same definition of what counts as rubbish as he does before I'd trust him. (Or her - they had this female politician in Australia recently I believe who said things like that...)

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: MK
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:29 PM

In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And the Plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinks."
And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and we can't live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company with very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.

And this, is how shit happens.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: pastorpest
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:40 PM

Go to straightgoods.com (Canadian alternate press) and on their own web search, put in "Stockwell Day" and read the two articles about Bentley Alberta, neo-nazis, and Stockwell Day. SCARY STUFF!

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:05 AM

Anyone who reads and believes in Media generated crap, I feel really sorry for. I respect other peoples opinions but heartily suggest you go and talk to your local Alliance party reps before forming opinions based on Canadian Press reports. A Russian once told me he though Canadian Media were worst propaganda spreaders than Pravda.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:05 AM

Anyone who reads and believes in Media generated crap, I feel really sorry for. I respect other peoples opinions but heartily suggest you go and talk to your local Alliance party reps before forming opinions based on Canadian Press reports. A Russian once told me he though Canadian Media were worst propaganda spreaders than Pravda.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:45 AM

You could of course vote for the Green Party for a real alternative. And one that is actually conservative (conserving) rather than the array of radical neo-liberals (let us continue to expand the 19th century market until there is nothing else) that we have on offer. Can there be anything more ridiculous than a party that supports the idea of family values and small communities simultaneously supporting the one force that is destroying both of these?

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: kendall
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:35 PM

Would someone please explain "Canadian Values"?

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 04:38 PM

Canadian values: bland mediocrity to avoid murdering each other on the basis of our muffled hatred for other peoples and provinces; supplemented by crass exploitation of the natural environment disguised as hardy innovative pioneer entrepreneurship; all doused in maple syrup and borrowed pieties.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 04:57 PM

Those values also are = Voting out government rather than voting one in; and believing lies rather than the truth. "We have a head in the sand" attitude; forgiving lies because the truth hurts. No matter what your political stand is, this country needs some new faces in charge. My opinion but obviously not shared by everyone. Without dumping on any side, all I plead for is do your homework before voting; and please don't let the "Media" be your only source of information. Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 06:29 PM

"Canadian values: bland mediocrity to avoid murdering each other on the basis of our muffled hatred for other peoples and provinces; supplemented by crass exploitation of the natural environment disguised as hardy innovative pioneer entrepreneurship; all doused in maple syrup and borrowed pieties. yours, Peter T."

Hey, Peter, I thought Canadians are nice guys. Have we been so misled?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 08:23 PM

The Canadian election...LOL!!! Oh, my (gasp! chuckle, snort!). I am Canadian, and I'm gettin' ready to sleep through this one. Wake me up when it's over.

Okay, I jest...but it is kinda funny, for the reasons Rick gave in his first post.

I would not in good conscience vote for any of the 5 conventional parties, except possibly the NDP, but I have little confidence in them, frankly, although I'm sure they have good intentions (as do the others, probably...from their own point of view).

The mainstream parties all belong to the Machine, and the Machine lives on the backs of the poor, and lobotomizes the middle class with consuner goods, the "news", and bad TV and radio shows.

The only parties I can consider voting for in good conscience are the Natural Law Party and the Green Party. They are so small that the Machine can't be bothered with them...and they won't win anything, but one of them will get my vote anyway.

- LH

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:39 PM

Now I've heard just about everything. I am sorely disillusioned. I will wait, however, for the next governmental change in the UK in order to get the dope from its people before I decide to stop listening to anybody outside the US on US matters! *BG*

Eb

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 09:01 AM

Ebbie, Canadians are only nice guys to keep from murdering each other. One reason why Canadians have no history is that each faction has a history that demonizes the other, so it all remains suspended in amber. The only reason the country has not turned into Bosnia is a series of agonizing near misses over a hundred years or more. It is all a facade: who made it up Vimy Ridge in World War One, and slogged through Normandy in World War Two, and wandered around in Korea...? When you want to send in killers, who do you call? Canadians. The nice Canadian is a myth.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:55 PM

Peter T: Surely you jest?

Perhaps Canada has separate histories (No Quebois pun intended). Here in Alaska, there is a good deal of travel and interaction to and from the YT. Whitehorse has many musicians who perform here and are well loved, Juneau ice hockey teams compete with YT teams, a number of Juneauites have cabins in Atlin, our banks and stores accept Canadian money (at exchange rate), Juneau people love the drive from Skagway across the mountains (in the daylight!), every year there is a relay foot race from Juneau to Whitehorse...

Judging by the Yukon Territory, I'd say Canadians are nice, eh?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Jo King
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:06 AM

Hi folks, I was initially somewhat disturbed by the degree of negativity in this debate. I thought that it may stem from some people's desire for change, and other's fears of the unknown, and a perceived threat to a level of tolerance, to which Canadians have become accustomed. In steping back I found it encouraging that there is no shortage of concern in the electorate. This is a neccessary attribute in my view, because no matter who wins and by what margin people need to be active, in order to have their voices heard between polling dates. As for Stockwell? He leads the Alliance. They have direct roots in the Reform party. The Reform party held views that threatened a sense of social tolerance that I hold very dear to me. The Alliance has a history. The past actions and beliefs in the Reform days are not erased by the formation of the Alliance. It just does not work that way in this voter's mind. Do I trust Stockwell Day? Not as far as I could throw him. Do I trust Jean Cretien? Well I believe I could throw him further. In the mean time I will be receptive to new information, and prepared to voice my opinions as the new mandate begins. I hope everone joins me in this committment, regardless of who they intend to vote for. Be well, Jo King

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Crowhugger
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:57 AM

"No one to vote for..."

Well, if everyone whose heart says vote NDP actually does so, instead of throwing away their vote on one of the big parties, they might form a minority government. And perhaps the Greens and Natural Law, with a Rhino or two, could hold the balance of power.

As for the new broom sweeps clean thing, it sweeps the same garbage as the old broom, just more quickly because it still has all its bristles.

I didn't see mention of Red-Tory Joe-Who.

Not to mention the inherent flaw in any system where popular vote counts for nothing.

I don't mean to post and run, but it'll be a few days till I can check in here again...I'm off to spend a few days with Mom who is sick.

CH.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 05:21 PM

Yeah, it is pretty extraordinary that you can have a political system (as in Canada) where 35% or 44% of the voting public (which means maybe 25% or 34% of the whole potential voting public) can elect a MAJORITY government!!! Truly unbelievable, yet it has happened numerous times. This is not what I call a representative democracy, it's a farce. It's a game. Just like the empty excercise that's presently wrapping up south of the Canadian border.

Nevertheless, Canada remains an extraordinarily decent and non-violent country, and a very nice place to live, and yes, Canadians mostly are really quite nice people.

O Canada! We stand on guard for thee. (no sarcasm intended) I'm very glad to be in Canada.

- LH

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Jo King
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:04 PM

Hello

"CH" I think that "if" is one of NDP's strengths and their worst enemy. On one hand they are willing to explore a lot of possibilities, and look in directions that we should likely be heading. On the other hand the "reality" of the electoral process tends to make voters dismiss the NDP as too distent. This is not right. But, I think that is part of their battle. As for Mr. Clark? I think I could throw Cretien further. I hope your mom is feeling better.

"LH" Okay, you've identified the problem. What is the solution? I don't mean this to sound snide, but that is the next step. I agree with you, and I don't know the answer. I also doubt we can come up with one prior to Nov. 27th.

Be Well,

JK

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 08:10 PM

Just thought that those of you who are scared of the alternatives to Stockboy might be interested in this fascinating little history.

CALGARY: Stockwell Day is keen to portray himself as a righteous defender of democracy. But his record as a member of the Alberta government for 14 years tells a different story. Then, he was much more interested in securing power for a small group of politicians and corporations than in making sure government was accountable to citizens. His most recent defence of democracy occurred last week when he launched an attack on Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who's been in power so long, according to Mr. Day, that "democracy has been diminished." "Any time somebody accumulates that much power we know that it tends to have a corrupting influence on the individual," Day told a crowd of supporters in Napanee, Ont. Really? Day's Bill 57 became so controversial - the Fraser Institute was among its few endorsers - that Ralph Klein eventually dropped it

If you live in Alberta you can only shake your head and wonder why Mr. Day is so sure that the Liberal government has been corrupted by power but quite willing to give the Alberta government the benefit of the doubt. Premier Ralph Klein has been in power for longer than Mr. Chretien - eight years - and is set to run again in the spring. The Alberta Tories have been in power for - count 'em - twenty-nine years. There have been Lougheed Tories, Getty Tories and now Klein Tories. Apparently, Mr. Day would have us believe that an almost 30-year uninterrupted reign in Alberta is okay but a seven-year tour of duty by the current Prime Minister is verging on dictatorship.

Cuts, power grabs and central control As Government House Leader, and as a cabinet minister (Labour, Family and Social Services, Finance) in the Klein government, Mr. Day supported and implemented deep cuts to health care, education and social services as well as the privatization of many government services. But he didn't utter a peep when Mr. Klein moved to centralize authority in his office in order to expedite that rapid deficit elimination program. The control was so tight that all public statements by ministers were first vetted by Mr. Klein or his chief of staff Rod Love - the same Rod Love that is now working to elect a Stockwell Day government.

Jobbing out services, glomming power When he was Government House Leader/Minister of Labour Mr. Day himself authored one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation ever put before the Legislature. Bill 57 - The Delegated Administration Act - would have transferred responsibility for government services to corporations and appointed boards without the approval of the Legislature. The cornerstone of the Klein government's privatization initiatives, Bill 57 not only allowed government ministers to shed responsibilities to private sector corporations, it enabled those corporations to avoid government monitoring. Contractors would have had full authority to collect their own taxes and fees but they would have been exempt from Alberta's Financial Administration Act, which requires the Auditor-General to conduct annual audits of government agencies and departments. Nor would they be required to abide by the province's pending Freedom of Information legislation. At the time, Mike Clegg, a former parliamentary counsel to the Alberta government said: "It is to my knowledge unprecedented in terms of its almost unlimited scope and the degree of initiative it gives to the government without any further debate in the legislature.'' Bill 57 became so controversial (the Fraser Institute was among the few to wholeheartedly endorse it) Mr. Klein eventually dropped it. Mr. Day had to concede that it was clear Albertans wanted more say in the government's privatization plans. Privatization and the off-loading of government programs and responsibilities to appointed boards proceeded apace anyway. Mr. Day even mused publicly about selling the Workers' Compensation Board. He didn't go that far but it is now a quasi-public, self-regulating, non-profit insurance monopoly where the CEO earns $355,000 a year - three times more than the Premier. As for appointed boards responsible for delivering government services, there are plenty of those in Alberta too. Board members of the 17 regional health authorities are all appointed by the provincial government and are often prominent Tories. These boards have immense power. In Calgary and Edmonton they control $1 billion dollar budgets and are responsible for all aspects of health care in the region.

Shutting down debate all in a Day's work The Klein government has introduced a blizzard of legislative changes since coming to power. But it has also stifled debate on many of the most important measures by invoking closure of debate 27 times. Bill 11 was the most notorious example. Even though all independent polls showed that the majority of Albertans did not support the legislation that would allow for private, for-profit hospitals, the government invoked closure and rammed the bill through Mr. Day was campaigning for the Alliance leadership at the time. But he flew back to Alberta and cast his vote for Bill 11 amid the din created by thousands of protesters outside the Legislature. Two weeks later the Alberta government invoked closure again when it passed the provincial flat tax put forward by Mr. Day when he was Treasurer. Alberta as a one-party state with tight control of just about everything centred in the Premier's office and the executive council of cabinet doesn't seem to upset Mr. Day at all. No wonder his crusade for democracy in the rest of the country seems a little hypocritical to many Albertans. It's business as usual in Alberta, but those power hungry Liberals in Ottawa? They absolutely have to go.

Gillian Steward is a Calgary-based journalist and former managing editor of The Calgary Herald. She co-authored with Kevin Taft Clear Answers: The Economics and Politics of For-Profit Medicine.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 08:57 PM

Well, whatever happens you should be able to give your neighbours a few useful tips about running elections.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 09:09 PM

Umm sorry, I was playing on my Dad's computer and posted that earlier Guest message forgetting that I didn't have my cookie on there. Personally I find Stockwell Day the most frightening candidate as he so clearly has no moral principles at all. He races towards power at all and any cost saying whatever he thinks will get him there the fastest.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: MK
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:43 PM

Hopefully the Canadian Alliance (now there's a paradox), while sweeping eastward from Alberta, will once again smash itself into smithereens against a solid brick wall called Ontario, and that'll be all she wrote.

Personally I'd rather dip my nipples in hydrochloric acid then vote for them and a party leader who's on a first name basis with *Doug Keegstra.

*One of Canada's most notorious "revisionists" along with Ernst Zundel.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:47 PM

Michael, do you mean "Jim" Keegstra.....or possible Doug Christie (another gem)

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: MK
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM

Yes...and both.
So? Did you hear the one about Ernst Zundel phoning the fire department pleading with them to send help immediately because his house was on fire? Their reply: "No, it isn't."

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:51 PM

Personally I don't think Ernst Zundel exists.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: MK
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:52 PM

Touche, Soph.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:16 PM

This should take you to an interesting initiative in Canadian Politics.

Subject: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Clinton Hammond2
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:26 PM

Dang Soph!

Ya beet me to it...

The alliance be damned!

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,simon-pierre
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:37 AM

(((About Zundel and revisionnist that don't exist... The best-kwown (*) person in France to promote this crap is Garaudy, an ex-communist, and was define as a "n‚gationniste". People start to fight him, calling themselves the "n‚garaudistes"))) (*) Insert insult there, I don't know too many in english

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: GUEST,bbc at work
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:45 AM

Another mind-broadening benefit of the Internet--I thought American politics was a mess. I guess you guys have your share, too. Perhaps politics *everywhere* is a mess? Mutual condolences to us all & best to my Mudcat brothers & sisters. Long may we wave!

bbc

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Marion
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 07:10 PM

There was some discussion above about Canadian values. Here's an incident that I think is a great example.

A couple of years ago, a small crowd of Phelps-inspired people came up to Ottawa to protest a Supreme Court ruling over the meaning of "spouse" (for those who don't recognize the name, Phelps is the "minister" who organizes homophobic demonstrations - harrassing Matthew Shephard's funeral with signs like "God hates fags" and so on).

The plan was for them to burn a Canadian flag. However, it became apparent that none of the demonstrators had burned a flag before and weren't sure how exactly to do it. So a Mountie who was there to keep the peace explained to them how to burn the flag so that nobody would get hurt.

The Mountie was criticized by some, but I thought he did a great job - both at making the homophobes look like fools, and at upholding my values (i.e., that preventing people from getting hurt is more important than worrying over some symbolic gesture).

Marion

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: CBjames
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 01:03 AM

Why Anyone would vote for Doris Day is quite beyond me.

Perhaps Jason should qualify his values as "Western" Canadian values. I don't personally have a great commitment to widespread unregulated posession of firearms, the re-criminalization of abortion and the insistance that Creationism is Science.

This is the nonsense of the Reform Party and I really cannot see that the Canadian Alliance has spoken out to deny it.

Maybe it is time to break up the country. Atlantic Canada and Alberta have the oil. Quebec, Ontario & B.C can go freeze in the dark.

I am sure Doris will show the way.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 12:12 AM

Jo King - here's my solution:

1. Ban all political parties forever! Yes, I am 100% bloody well serious on that!

2. Ban the very notion of a "party in power" and an "official opposition". To quote Abe Lincoln, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". Our party system is such a house.

3. Ban both private and corporate funding of political campaigns. All political campaigning would be funded out of a public purse (taxes) and would be of moderate and equal funding to all candidates.

4. Allow a maximum of 5 candidates to run in any riding, following nominations from the ordinary public. Candidates would be nominated by the ordinary public, NOT by a political machine or on the basis of any party affiliation...but simply on the basis of character and reputation. Can you imagine how much this would involve the public in the democratic process, and free them from party politics and manipulation? This is basically how local politics works in any small town or community, where we still have genuine democracy.

5. Have a short campaign in which all candidates present themselves and their ideas...NOT some party ideology.

6. After the election, all elected officials form local committees, which appoint regional committees from the membership, which appoint a national committee, which appoints a cabinet and a prime minister. No party divisions, no infighting, one united goverment formed from many minds. And end this incredible cult of leadership that we are presentl indulging in...no one can live up to it, anyway.

7. Now, obviously, all the present shades of opinion would probably be represented and show up among those elected and appointed members. That would be good. They would not, however, be artificially divided into party blocs, and would be far more inclined to work together and seek reasonable compromises. They would also be free to vote their conscience on any issue, as there would be no parties to enforce "party line" on their members.

8. All legislation would need at least a 2/3 majority to pass. That rule alone would weed out contentious and extreme legislation, and encourage reasonable compromise.

Okay? That's a start. It is political parties themselves which have corrupted our system. People have conveniently forgotten the the very notion of political parties is a comparatively recent one...and is in no way necessary as a function of democracy. Political parties are by their very nature, divisive, arbitrary, and given to corruption of every sort.

The other thing that has corrupted our system is the huge influence of money, BIG money, on who gets elected. And that money is in the hands of the political parties and their unseen backers, which are not the ordinary public.

Do I think these suggestions of mine are going to happen soon? Probably not, but I call it the way I see it. There's no use sticking bandaids on a patient that needs major surgery.

People today can't imagine politics without political parties. Well, not too long ago they couldn't imagine that the Earth rotated around the sun (not vice versa) or that anyone had the right to rule nations except divinely appointed kings and their progeny. People will generally believe ANYTHING their parents and teachers told them to belive...no matter how arbitrary or useless it happens to be. Monkey see, monkey do. It's time for the monkey to wake up and think for himself for a change.

= LH

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 08:20 AM

Okay all youse Canadian types time to vote! I ain't going to try and predict anything but I'llbe listening to the returns with interest.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Willie-O
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 05:15 PM

Well I made my x after much deliberation. Almost voted for the Canadian Action Party guy, who is an acquaintance of mine and has been actively soliciting my vote, unlike anyone else. But since I worked for him awhile and then he fired me, I voted NDP when it came down to it. Maybe next time for the CAP. (Their platform is that Free Trade, NAFTA and associated agreements have paved the way for Canada's absorption by the US within 20 years and must be immediately repealed). Next time might be soon if there's a minority government. Fine with me--the Liberals do not deserve any more free ride.

DaveTAM, you're a good guy but Day's history and viewpoints are well-documented from a multitude of sources--complaining about a monolithic media blackening his rep is just not credible. Besides, his campaign was hands-down the slickest series of media-manipulation maneuvers ever seen in a Canadian election, if they have some sort of worthwhile message that got lost, it's their own fault.

Done my duty,
Willie-O

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:53 PM

People who couldn't work out for themselves how to burn a flag? How do they manage when they need to wipe their...? It must be tough being a Mountie.

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 08:00 PM

Enquote, CBC: Others said they arrived at polling stations to find locked doors, incomplete voters' lists, improper ballots, or workers who didn't seem to know what they were doing.

Are you guys US American, or what? :)

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 11:34 PM

Majority for the Liberals. Jean Chretien will have the opportunity to continue to lose his marbles...from a position of power.

Stockwell Day will continue to pray for our souls...but he won't have CONTROL over them.

Gilles Duceppe barely aware that an election took place west of Quebec.

Alexa MacDonaugh will be our "conscience"

Joe Clark has a Babe for a daughter....but (as of this writing) no official Party status.

Have heard of any dimpled chads so far.

Rick

Subject: RE: Canadian Election: Nov. 27, 2000
From: sophocleese
Date: 28 Nov 00 - 08:18 AM

Well I was hoping there would be less of a majority. Its astonishing how similar the speeches of all the leaders were whether they won seats or lost them. Ebbie, I think perhaps some election officials learned the wrong things from Florida. Unfortuneately the decision to save money by not doing a proper voting list was made before the American Elelction.