BS: Wild Canadian Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 23 May 09 - 10:19 AM

Yeah, I suppose the Gaspe fishermen are hurting too. Just seems like Quebec has and gets so much... and $10M is a drop in the pot. They spent more on Mulroney. ooooo

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 23 May 09 - 09:20 AM

Quebec gets lobster money because the four maritime provinces are PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Gaspe.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 22 May 09 - 06:25 PM

Nice work if you can get it, eh? Fuck me! Well, fuck every taxpayer in the village!

And, while we are at it, $10M for the lobster industry? To be divided up between Atlantic Canada and La Belle Province???? Quebec? Why in fuck does Quebec get a share in the lobster money? Or does Mulroney and the reast of the sonsabitches from Uppity Canada....

ooooo... gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 22 May 09 - 05:51 PM

SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS? That what we paid for this crap?

And he is gonna walk away with another $2M?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 13 May 09 - 07:18 PM

There's a tear in your eye and I'm wondering why
For it never should be there at all

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:37 PM

". . . when Irish eyes are smirking . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:26 PM

And, we are asked to believe that the RCMP made an improper "accusation" by mistake during the Airbus affair which negated a proper execution of justice and Bri got $2.1M as a result... ooooo... my head hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:31 PM

And he wants us to believe that the only mistake he made was to not ask for a cheque.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:24 PM

Yes he does! The nice guy! I suppose he was nice! Envelopes full of cash? No receipts? Nice guy!

Imagine the blatant audacity it takes to sit in front of a camera and say he took CASH in a hotel room from a foreign arms dealer and never reported it as income for six years and he wants me to feel sorry for him? Fuckin thief! Fuckin trash! He sullies all Canucks with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:13 PM

Well, he says there were really two Karl-Heinz Schreibers, one a well-respected businessman, the other a sleazy fugitive from German justice. But he doesn't actually specify which of the two he thought was giving him the brown paper bags full of used fifty dollar bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:00 PM

I agree with you gnu, the man is oleaginous in the extreme, he makes me want to ban lawyers from holding public office.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:40 PM

He was on the evening news, too. "Inappropriate..."??? WTF? If I didn't declare income, The Canada Revenue Agency (thanks to that asshole, we have a number of "agencies") would crawl up my audit and use my blood to write up the law suit to put me in jail and extract the taxes and the fine.

I am SO pissed off!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:36 PM

I am upset, yet again, by Lyin Brian.

I absolutely detest the man and his policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:26 AM

When I lived in Vancouver I ended up with a kitten to keep my Dobey/Lab company. One day I asked the dog "Where's your stick"? She returned with the kitten! It was king of funny until the cat decided it no longer wanted to play or be "stick"!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:40 AM

If I ever have another dog I shall call it Dammit. It will make training easier. "Sit, Dammit!" or "Heel, Dammit" or "Get OFF of that, Dammit."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:31 PM

Gerald Durrell's family acquired two very young dogs on Corfu when he was a boy. They were soon appropriately and somewhat cynically named Widdle and Puke. There's literary humour in an eccentric British family for you...

Farley Mowat's approach strikes me as quite similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 08:11 PM

Farley? Mowhat?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 07:58 PM

Farley! I heard that he called two of his dogs "Goddamit" and "You Little Bastard" for so long that that is the only thing they would respond to(or only names he could remember)!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 09 - 09:33 PM

Liberals take lead in new poll
Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:20am EDT

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - The main opposition Liberals have pulled ahead of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in voter support, according to a poll released on Thursday.

But the Ekos/CBC survey also found that nearly half of those polled do not want to have another federal election for four years. Canadians went to the polls last October, giving the Conservatives another minority government.

The new poll found 36.7 percent of those surveyed would vote for the Liberals under new leader Michael Ignatieff if an election were held today. That compares with 30.2 percent for the Conservatives and 15.5 percent for the New Democratic Party.

The results showed a major shift from a January Ekos survey that showed the Conservatives with 36.2 percent support, compared with 32.6 percent for the Liberals and 14.3 percent for the NDP.

The new poll surveyed 1,587 people between April 8 and 13 and has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, Ekos said.

The survey also found 49 percent of those polled felt the Conservative government was moving in the wrong direction, compared with 38 percent who felt it was going the right direction.

Fifty-four percent said they disapproved of Harper's leadership, compared with 38 percent who approved. Ignatieff's leadership approval rating was 50 percent, compared with 28 percent who disapproved.

Both leaders, however, were walloped by U.S. President Barack Obama's approval rating: a hefty 82 percent support among Canadians, according to the survey.

Obama's plans to revive the economy were also favored over those of Harper's Conservative government, with 54 percent saying the U.S. plans were viewed as sound, compared with only 31 percent for Canada's.

(Reporting Allan Dowd, editing by Rob Wilson)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:57 AM

I've been thinking the same thing gnu ... "about the kick in the ass by the coalition"

Hell .... if there was an election tomorrow I might even vote for ... hang on there slapping myself on the head ... it's been one long harsh winter.

Yes, I agree ... I do like what I'm seeing.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:34 AM

sIx.... this on top of the way he performed when Obama came calling... d'ya suppose that kick in the ass by the coalition woke him up? Whatever happened, I like it.

I still wouldn't trust him any further than I can throw him, but I like what I am (now) seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 09:15 AM

Whoa ..... I thought I'd never say I could agree with Harper on anythng ... but is right on with this:

harper cbc

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:40 PM

I repeat... "BTW, for you Canucks that underatsand (this wouldn't play in modern day UAS) and remember, here's a BLAST from the past."

I would expect some flak from some of the UASers about that post, but, from Canucks? Perhaps youse should have read what EYE posted in the first place.

As for 2020 hindsight and your foresight... gnightgnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:27 PM

Peter T... "One day, gnu, you will actually read someone else's post."

I do... it's just that I don't read anything into them. I take them at face value. If mine are ambiguous, point it out, please. I certainly offer such courtesey for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM

I can well remember that time ("when the CBC was just about everything", etc) but boy, is that time ever gone! I think it began to fade out in the early 70s.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:07 AM

No, I never had the slightest interest in hockey. I was way too artsy.

People forget that there was a time in Canada when the CBC was just about everything, and Toronto was essentially CFRB and CHUM.   If you wanted news or music that was it. People like Gordon Sinclair were gods.

Actually, I revise my earlier remark. There is still one crazy recalcitrant storytelling Canadian character out there -- Farley Mowat.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM

It wouldn't really be complete without the dog, would it?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:07 PM

snigger snigger

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM

"Hey, Champ, I hear you went out to dinner with Don Cherry and Blue his dog."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM

Have you ever spent an evening in Don Cherry's company, Peter?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM

I don't know that he was a great Canadian, but he was an amusing son-of-a-bitch. I once spent an evening in his company -- a windbag, but, as I say, amusing. They don't make Canadians like him anymore. Certainly journalism is now way, way more boring.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM

At least the Canuckians had enough sense to kick Bill Ayres back across the border.

Right on Chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 11:10 PM

Gordon Sinclair had no excuses to make Peter. He was a great Canadian

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

One day, gnu, you will actually read someone else's post.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:50 PM

CC... CD... yer cool, darlin. Yer more Canuck than some Canucks.

Gordy said what he said because he believed it. He did not need an excuse. That is the way it WAS. Don't impose the future on the past.

Why can't you let go of the future? Because you have seen it? Gordy didn't. Why blame him for that?

BTW, if youse can see the future past, guess what finger Gordy is holding up at ye.

I wish I had never posted that. Maybe we could stay on track now?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:01 PM

I hope 'does not count' means doesn't count as a Yank. Because I know for a fact that I can count at least to twenty (if I have my shoes off)...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

Well put, Peter. Those were different times indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:53 PM

Yes, Gordon is long dead. He was part of an era that thought, wrongly, that Canadian culture was always going to be strong enough to withstand the winds of Americana, so he could afford to be generous.   He was in the ebbtide of the British empire, and in the aftermath of the extraordinary contribution of Canada to World War II, so he had some excuse.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

"Nothing eluded Gordy." Naw, naw...that's Don Cherry you're thinking of! ;-) Nothing eludes Don Cherry.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Ahhhh... scuse me? It was a blast from the past. Nothing eluded Gordy. If you are gonna take it out of the context of history, as I alluded to in my post, well, you are a Canuck that doesn't understand.

Odd that nobody has crapped on me for changing the name of our neighbours. Maybe there are no Yanks reading this thread, which might be a good thing.

Oh.... CC (CD??? hehehe) is an honourary Canuck and does not count... in the CONTEXT of my de-allusions.

Where is JimLad? His take is always soooo, interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:49 PM

Exactly. And that is the aspect that seems to have eluded Gordon Sinclair... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:19 AM

We are like Gaul or some minor but essential province in the Roman empire. That is why this Obama thing to me is like sitting around wondering whether Claudius is going to be better than Caligula. Well, yes, but does it change the underlying dynamic -- no. Under Obama, the Americans are still invading other countries whenever they feel like it (ask the Pakistanis what they think about the last week). They still think they are morally superior to everyone, and therefore have a right to do what they please.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 12:05 AM

I think the general perception in the world is that the USA is already big enough and strong enough to adequately help itself in an emergency, whereas that is not the case with more impoverished countries. Wouldn't that be normal? That's the part of the point I was making when I said that others did not rush in to help Imperial Rome...or the British at their height of power...or Napoleon at his height of power...because of the same perception that "they are big enough to take care of it themselves".

The normal assumption is that impoverished countries or countries that have just been devastated by a lost war or that simply don't have the monetary or material resources required to handle a disaster...those are the countries where the most aid is sent by other countries.

And is that surprising? We provide shelters in our cities for the homeless and unemployed poor. We do not provide shelters to house temporarily homeless millionaires, because they can already afford to rent a hotel room!

***

What Gordon Sinclair was drawing attention to (while overstating his case) was that some people simply use the USA as their fulltime whipping boy, and in so doing they are merely indulging themselves in the self-righteous joy of their favorite prejudice...anti-Americanism. Fine. Some people do that, for sure, and it's often unfair to the USA when they do. It does not, however, mean that everybody should keep their mouths shut when the USA flaunts international law and wages unjustifiable wars of aggression and occupation...as they did in Vietnam and as they have done more recently in Iraq.

He was drawing attention to someone else's prejudice...but mainly just because it was a different prejudice than his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM

So then out side of Canada and maybe Mexico, has any other country helped the United States in times of disasters? Gordon Sinclair's film clip maybe out of touch but is he correct in saying that really no body has helped the U.S.?
I can't think of any. I'm probably wrong. I'm sure Russia, England, France and others have offered. But have they?
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM

A lot of things were different in the US and in the world in 1973, when Gordon made that rant. Although at that time a lot of the criticism leveled at the US from other countries had to do with our illegal war of aggression in Vietnam, and it was well deserved criticism, in my opinion, we also still looked like we were the most altruistic country to a lot of people. But at that point in time, most people didn't know about our many (often violent) interferences in other countries' democracies, and the other self-serving things we have done around the world that have harmed a lot of people and a lot of societies. Now that we know about those kinds of things, it does kind of make Gordon's rant look a little ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM

You know, the Romans once went all over Europe and the entire Mediterranean world also spending vast amounts of their money to build new roads, aqueducts, urban projects, baths, coliseums for gladiatorial combats, theatres, and all kinds of wonderful stuff like that.....but when something went wrong in Rome nobody else in the empire sent aid to the Romans (unless they had no choice about it)! Ask yourself why.

For one thing: They figured the Romans were filthy rich already off the spoils of the ancient world which they had gained through their military prowess by conquering everybody or forcing them to become client states in the empire.

For another: they Romans just weren't all that well liked. They were respected for their ability, but not liked. Ask yourself why.

The world didn't send aid to Britain either when Great Britain was running the biggest and wealthiest empire the world had ever seen...nor did the world send aid to Napoleon when he was successfully conquering most of Europe.

Ask yourself why.

However, Canada has sent aid to the USA in recent disasters such as the New England ice storms and the hurricane in New Orleans. So I think Gordon Sinclair's exuberant indignation over no one "sending aid to the USA" and everyone criticizing the USA despite all the USA has done, is both misleading and off the mark, and it has nothing to do with legitimate criticism of US foreign policy when that criticism is deserved. I think he doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Good find Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:26 PM

My goodness! He should've gone down to the USA and got a key job there. He talks their line of propaganda better than anyone except for maybe Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM

All is going according to plan. Thank goodness! Maybe some of us who depend on moving money will get a sniff.

BTW, for you Canucks that underatsand (this wouldn't play in modern day UAS) and remember, here's a BLAST from the past.

I dunno if it's germain to this thread, but, maybe... in a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM

gelding, perhaps.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM

I saw that post as a lily that was not in need of any gilding.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:01 PM

You are a sensitive and perceptive soul, Bob, to have commented on that. We need more people like you in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM

The only place where it may continue and not fizzle out is right here.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

So it ends with a fizzle?   (And I had my popcorn ready and everything... )

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 04:36 PM

like Charmion said......

(wild Canadian politics is now officially over)
yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:19 AM

The decline in the level of schoolboy sniggering on Mudcat is much to be lamented. Nobody has taken the bait so blatantly cast by LH in the post of 27 Jan 09 - 02:56 PM. One might allude to Harper and Ignatieff holding one another's, for instance, but no, we're too refined for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM

$350 million dollars to support nuclear power? What a complete waste of money. Dinosaurs supporting dinosaurs.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:18 PM

Well, no, but, let's get the budget passed and spend some coin and worry about that asshole later.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

Gilles says that he doesn't trust Harper, PERIOD.

Can't say that I disagree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 04:49 PM

WTF? Gilles says NO immediately? Period? Power at ANY cost?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:03 PM

Hahahahaaa.... Harper, yes. The dumb bastard made a law about EXACTLY when and then broke his own law.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:56 PM

How often is it really necessary to hold an erection? How often is it desirable? How often is it advantageous? Harper and Ignatieff are probably asking themselves those very questions right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:06 PM

Election? Who said anything about an election?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:53 PM

Yes, dear gnu, you're missing something. Nobody -- not the Liberals, who could win but are exhausted and in disarray, nor the Conservatives, ditto -- really wants an election. The journalists know it, but if they write that the narrative changes to a totally banal Parliament Gets Back To Work, or Move Along -- Nothing To See Here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:03 AM

I was a tad disappointed. Three pages? A lot of which was bullshit.

And, the media can't think of anything better to ask Tres Hombres than if they intend to bring the government down? They said the budget, some of which was leaked by Harpie on the weekend (what?), is supposedly 250 pages. I hope they all took sped reddin corses... even then, we're talking weeks... even then, I assume they will support it, more or less, and keep an eye on things, reserving the right to non-confident his ass if he gets up to his old tricks.

Maybe even an extra trip home to consult the ridings?

Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM

CBC Radio reporter has just said that today's throne speech rhetoric was borrowed from Igger. "Borrowed from"? "Insisted on by" would be my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:24 PM

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how these carnivores desperately advocate for vegetarianism. (Their heart is not in this stuff at all).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:20 PM

Awright!!! Let the game begin. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 08:32 AM

Today, Her Excellency the Governor General will open the Second Session of the 40th Parliament at 1:30 p.m. with a Speech from the Throne in the Senate Chamber. The text of the Throne Speech will be available in the Senate and House of Commons Debates for January 26, 2009. The Debates will be posted on the Web site the following day and can be found under Chamber Business.

The live webcast of the Speech from the Throne will be available at approximately 1:30 p.m. EST.

Got that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:55 AM

Here we go again.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:35 AM

It's January 26......

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:32 PM

there was also talk awhile back by folks like Marc Lalonde that Montreal could split from an independent Quebec to become a city state.... with half the entire population of the province...
I think these ideas will keep brewing for generations to come while the holy city of Westmount keeps sending five gallons of Maple syrup to the Queen every year.... what a place..

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 10:04 AM

JimLad, you could accuse Newfoundlanders of voting in the last federal election in an even more directly provincial manner, given the success of Danny Williams' ABC campaign.

If it ever came down to Quebecois people deciding to bite the bullet and actually vote to separate, I doubt it would turn out to be the desperate event many people seem to expect. It would certainly be messy, likely moreso for Quebecois than for the rest of Canada. There is a significant and in their own way powerful First Nations presence in Quebec, with enormous land claims and a mandate to remain within the Canadian federal system. This is a can of worms Quebec is aware of and has been reluctant to talk about much when sovereignty is discussed.

It might take some time, but a separate Quebec would swing a lot of Canadian federal power to the West, making it attractive to the Atlantic provinces to possibly throw in their lot with Quebec - there's enough Francophone and ancestrally French people here to make it not unreasonable to Quebec, especially given their likely need to expand their tax base.

I personally doubt it will ever happen - Quebec is too tied to Canada to extricate itself successfully.

And by the way, Atlantic Canadians have heard far more direct insults from politicians at all levels of government in the West (particularly Alberta and BC) and Ontario than we've ever heard from politicians in Quebec. Even in the last decade, when Alberta desperately needs our skilled tradespeople, the attitude towards us out there can be unpleasant. Few Maritimers away to work come home without a few stories of native Albertans casting aspersions their way.

As for Ignatieff, I doubt there's a humble bone in his body. He'd be a one man band were it not for the star-struck bunch of powerful liberals who seem to think he might hold the possibilities of another PET. But he doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 08:12 AM

And yet the polls are showing that the Conservative party has lost nothing in Quebec over this last brawl.
I'll suggest to you again that a) Quebecers who considered that the Bloc was a safe place to park their vote were shocked to discover that separatism really is still on the agenda and will move towards the Liberals and Conservatives. and b) We have yet to discover how the next generation feels about isolating themselves in such a way.

Regardless of opinions on separatism (You wouldn't agree with mine. Trust me) there is something absolutely selfish about voting for a provincial party in a national election. I can see no good in that at all.

Some interesting stuff about Michael Ignatieff up there. Methinks that had the Conservatives not had such a strong leader in place, he would have chosen to run for that position himself. He seriously needs to cut back on the rhetoric though. He's beginning to sound a lot like Jack Layton. A little humility will get him a lot further both with the voters and with the conservative Government.

As for bench clearing brawls... I would have walked away before having one with Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:17 PM

I hope you are right, Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM

Happily, the chances of Harper forming a majority are now nil. He lost his chance with Quebec (no new seats there, ever, and he will lose most of those he got), and everyone else is warned that if he gets a majority, Attila the Hun will return. This is actually quite a good outcome of last month's smashup.

Harper will do everything in his power not to hold an election, and the Liberals will do the same.

You read these predictions here first.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:02 PM

Well, I'd far rather see a coalition of two or more parties than have one party in a majority position, anyway. Why? Because it's harder for a coalition to ram through bad legislation (not in the interests of the public) than it is for a majority, which is a de facto (albeit a temporary) dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:42 PM

And why not? I will say it again. True Quebecers are more Canuck than many Canadians.... lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:15 PM

Ha! A Liberal-Conservative coalition would be amusing...and it could work rather well for a time if they could both swallow their pride and unite in their common greed and self-interest. They have so much in common in that respect, after all. It would also give the NDP a chance to sieze the moral high ground again for a bit, and what a heady tonic that would be for them in these demoralized times. ;-)

You know what's really scrambled the old Canadian party system of checks and balances that Canada knew in the past? The fact that a Quebec nationalist party has deprived both the Liberals and the Conservatives of the powerful and monolithic bloc of votes that normally comes from Quebec. It has hurt the Liberals by far the worst, because they could usually count on the Quebecois to back them, but it has hurt the Conservatives too. It's like they are both trying to fight for a national majority, but with one hand tied behind their backs.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM

A synchronicity--while I was reading today's exchange between Jim Lad and Peace, there was a discussion on CBC about how Canada isn't completely useless because we serve as an example to the You-alls of how to conduct discourse along civilised lines like Kierans, Camp, and Lewis used to do on the Gzowski show. Or like Jim and Bruce on Mudcat! I'm not sure where that quintessential Canadian institution the bench-clearing brawl fits into this scenario though.

Anyway, re politics, here's a theory of mine which fell flat at the family dinner table the other day. I'm curious to see what you folks might have to say about it.

My idea is that we now have a coalition government after all--a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberals. And Ignatieff is in charge, although he lets Harper sit behind the big shiny desk, partly to humour the little man, but partly so that Harper can take the blame for the pro-American policies Ignatieff wants to see implemented just as much as Harper does. The coalition will last until Harper gets sick and tired of being Ignatieff's bitch, at which time there will be an election which will install Ignatieff in power for the next dozen years or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:16 PM

Queen Bee?

Ya got my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:09 PM

Yes, B. Testify!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:08 PM

In fact, if things aren't better by the time I turn sixty, I think I'll run for PM myself. Or Queen, whichever works for the restayez. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:04 PM

Personally, though I don't like his politics and don't care for the man's vengeful attitudes, Harper right now has the appearance (to me, and I may be misjudging hugely) of a man who has learned some hard truths recently. One of those truths being that you can't run Canada like some ideal myth spawned from the right wing think tanks that have informed his politics and his style of governance. I'd like to think he's capable of rethinking his belief system rather than ripping the country apart to suit his faded and bankrupt (too literally) ideals. Remains to be seen, and I just had that rosy little hope. There have been good Conservative leaders in the distant past, before the Reform Party raised it's thin squeaking whine from the West (sorry, Westerners, but could you not have gone for a party with less hatred of the poor, the non-religious, the non-traditionally oriented, etc?)

Ignatieff IMO will be another Harper in a prettier suit, one of the most right leaning Liberals I've seen, and with opinions on governance that leave out half the country, to judge by what he's said publically so far.

I foresee several years of chaotic politics and lame governance for Canada, until this lot (a pox on all their houses!) all retire or are driven out in disgrace, at which point one of the competent people who wisely, if selfishly kept their noses clean out of this mess offers to serve this good country as she should be served by her leaders.

I could slap the lot of 'em right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:28 PM

Well, I see no reason to insult a horse on account of its rider... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:25 PM

Sorry for twisting this a bit, Peace, BUT....

"I like you.", but, "...fuck you and the horse you rode in on..."

Now... if there was ever a demostrative example of what Canuck character truly is, there it is.

It's has shown itself more than a few times on this thread, in similar and akin ways.

A proud tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 03:30 AM

Had a lovely Christmas with the family.
Two new members this year.
A new daughter-in-law. They were married last week and my first grand daughter, due to be born in early March.
Your album is on rotation.
Thank You.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:00 AM

I love your voice and your music. THAT is how I really feel. As for Harper, he's the worst thing to happen to Canada since Mulroney. And I meant the Merry Christmas. Keep well, Jim.

Bruce

PS, "Highway of Tears" is really good, buddy. I hope to see you live at some point, because having heard your music I think you'd be dynamite in person.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:46 AM

You're holding back.
Why not tell me how you really feel?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:10 AM

Last thing, Jim. Usually, anyone posting to me like that would receive a cursory/perfunctory 'fuck you and the horse you rode in on', because I do NOT pretend to be a polite kinda guy. Nor do I wish to be quite as verbose as you. Despite all that, I like you. Your politics however are yours. Nice words about the Conservatives will not erase the fact that they have proven themselves unable to govern. Polls or no polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:04 AM

PS Anytime you set your sights on starting something with me is your call. However, I'll then be the one to decide whan it stops. Capiche?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:03 AM

OK. Harper will not win the next election. Howzat?

Opinion polls? Right. The same types of polls show Obama wouldn't win. I won't comment further. (And Jim, Merry Christmas to you.)

1) As to foul language--hell, that was a simple expletive. I didn't start foul.

2) I have no idea why you're chewing my ass. My opinion about Harper is just that: my opinion about Harper. I don't expect you to agree, but then neither do I care whether you do.

3) I tend to treat polls with floccinaucinihilipilificatio. I put little trust in them because they don't really mean much anymore. The people they think are representative of the 'great unwashed' just ain't there anymore.

So, how the fuck was that for an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:00 AM

And a Happy Christmas to you too, Bruce.

The man is soaring in the polls and the Liberals have shown no significant gains since Ignatieff's coronation.
Not withstanding your obvious dislike for the man and your taste for foul language, do you have one simple fact to back up your prediction?
Stephen Harper has out maneuvered the opposition and the media while at the same time gaining the admiration of financial critics at home and abroad. He is in majority territory and gaining strength.
Like it or not, most Canadians trust him to run the country's affairs.
Most Canadians consider him to be the best choice for Prime Minister and most Canadians are smart enough not to buy into the CBC "Mean Guy" caricature of the man.
When the Liberals finally do get their act together, I'll seriously consider them as a viable option. Right now, they are in tatters.
They are not capable of running the country and that is what this is about. Picking a manager.
No need to swear. No need to hate anyone. They are just business men who ask for the opportunity to play a roll in government.
You lose track of that, you lose sight of the game and any credibility you may have should you actually choose to contribute in a meaningful way to a political discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 02:21 AM

Well, as a Canuck I think Harper has fucked himself twenty-two ways from Tuesday. And Alberta, staunchly Conservative politically, receives no Senate representation in his appointments? A pork barrel that isn't? Keriste. My prediction for 2009. There WILL be an early election and Harper will NOT be the new PM. Serves him bloody-well right.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:44 PM

I'm much more into informed, reasonable debate than insulting each those with differing views.
I take it from your response that you thought a barage of insults is what I was looking for when I twice before wished you a Happy Christmas.
It wasn't.
Glad you've come around just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:21 PM

Well, Jimmy Lad, I am four hours ahead of you... at least. >;-)

Seriously... bless all and let's keep up the banter on Canuck politics. The more we shit on each other, the better. Democracy is dee bait!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:06 PM

And God bless us every one.
Happy Christmas, Gnu.
I see you've started without me.
Thanks Number 6.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

Yeah, LH... it's been in the news. And that is where Jim Lad is gonna end up if Canuck politicians keep selling this country to the highest bidder. "Elder abuse" begins at home.

Respect yer elders, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:08 PM

Yes, the beds are cheap in hell....but it's the service there that is simply unforgettable.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:34 PM

$130k? Hahahahaaaa! Give yer head a shake, Lad.

NOT to fill the seats... would have been a mistake... damn stupid he didn't do it long ago.

Reform the Senate? RUBBISH! We have an appointed Senate for a very good reason... so that mob rule is even further away from the grasp of a bunch of twits that would reform the Senate. Like I want some brain dead 18 year old kid voting my parents' old age away so that the likes of Stevie One can sell what they built to the highest bidder. I am appalled and disgusted at the very thought that wise and sage persons would be discarded in the name of greed... our elderly AND our Senators.

You may be elderly one day. Think twice before you advocate selling your ass to the highest bidder! They might just fold when you need them... and move your ass to a retirement home in hell... I hear the beds there are cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:52 PM

Well Jim Lad ... maybe when the lefties get a full majority in the House of Commons there might be a couple of seats vacant in the Senate for two East Coast working stiffs such as gnu and me.

Happy Christmas to you too Jimmy. :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:41 PM

Well it's actually $130.000 per year, Gnu and I'm only guessing here but I'd have to say that judging by some of your comments, you probably lean slightly left of the governing party and for that reason alone are not likely to be offered a position.
I could be wrong of course.
Happy Christmas to all of you.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:21 PM

I'm with ya on that one gnu !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:20 PM

His counterpart on CBC was quite giddy when being teased about being appointed in the lead up to this.
The CBC has been absolutely brutal towards this government in general.
I think the choice to appoint two CTV personalities was a bit of a slap in the face to CBC.
Mike had open heart surgery about a year ago and has not been well since.
I think this is one way of allowing the man to contribute.
I know that if you don't like the Conservatives then nothing Mr. Harper does will ever be right but the simple fact remains that to not fill the seats would have been the biggest mistake of his career as Prime Minister.
Parliament has been held to a virtual standstill with the opposition holding the vast majority of the unelected positions.
There will be at least eleven vacancies in the next year.
Once they are filled, the Senate Reform can begin and I think we are all in agreement that the Senate cannot stay the way it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:59 PM

If someone offered me about $200k a year for life and the opportunity to voice my opinion on Canuckistan's future in public, in the media, and actually also have ALMOST a say in the legislation? Bet yer bottom dollar I would sign up!!!

The Duff should have refused? What fuckin planet did these twits come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:26 AM

Another reaction to the Duffy and other appointments:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=7db1d777-5489-4e65-8887-8e9eb37280ee&p=1

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:12 AM

Some reaction to the Duffy appointment:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/todays-paper/Duffy+appointment+raises+eyebrows/1107500/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM

While Duffy will represent PEI, (was born there) I do"t believe he lived there since the early 70's (excluding vacations, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:57 AM

time for a Mars bar eh ? or is the Senate going Greene ?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:48 AM

I can kinda understand them all, except Nancy Greene. Come on, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:45 AM

The Duff is from PEI.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:44 AM

Well, Harper said he was going to reform the senate, it is certainly re-formed now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:35 AM

Hay Gnu!,
Is Mike Duffy from Newfoundland?
I knew his brother Peter who worked in St. John's
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 06:57 AM

The Duff too!!!

The new senators include:

two former Conservative and Progressive Conservative MPs (Fabian Manning of Newfoundland and Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis of Quebec);

two former Conservative candidates (Yonah Martin of British Columbia and John Wallace of New Brunswick);

two former advisers at the provincial and federal levels (Stephen Greene, onetime chief of staff to Preston Manning, and Fred Dickson, a former adviser to Nova Scotia premier John Buchanan);

six party officials, fundraisers, supporters and organizers (Michael MacDonald of Nova Scotia; Leo Housakos, Patrick Brazeau and Michel Rivard of Quebec; Nicole Eaton and Irving Gerstein of Ontario);

three former provincial elected officials (former Conservative MLA Percy Mockler in New Brunswick, former B.C. Liberal MLA Richard Neufeld and former Yukon Party member Dan Lang).

The remaining three are the most well-known and were not previously engaged in Conservative politics. They include career broadcaster Mike Duffy, who until last week hosted a daily hour-long political show called Mike Duffy Live; Former CTV broadcaster Pamela Wallin, who served last year on the independent panel of Canada's role in Afghanistan; and Olympic gold medalist skier Nancy Greene Raine.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 06:36 AM

"What is the world coming to?" That is the question. Is nothing sacred!???! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 08:06 PM

Cigar smoking used to be a big part of Christmas.
Now you have to nip out in the snow for half a fag.
What is the world coming to?
I ask you.
WWJD?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:55 PM

I was gonna say that you guys should start a new thread on Cuba appreciation because of the drift factor but then it came to me that that's probably where much of our government is heading anyway so it's not too out of place. We will return to our kvetching when parliament resumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:43 PM

Regarding those famous Havana cigars, Jim Lad...

They're still a big item in Cuba, specially for tourists, but the funny thing is that Fidel Castro himself publicly gave them up at least a decade ago (or maybe more) in order to encourage Cubans not to smoke. No one ever thought they'd see the day when Fidel stopped smoking cigars, but the times have changed. ;-)

A lot of the folks I went down with brought back a few Cuban cigars for their friends and family back in Canada. I like the smell of the things before they're lit...lovely...but after they're lit? Godawful!

All a matter of personal taste, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:36 PM

My nephew stayed in Gardenas at that place LH .... I know what you mean about those tourist compounds ... the reason I asked was that we want to go to Cuba in May ... and are on the search for some lodgings in Havana, far from the resort mentality as possible. I can appreciate and understand your love for that country.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:34 PM

"but they laugh and roll their eyes when foreigners request it, because it has become such a cliche over the past 60 years (in Cuba, I mean)."
Well when you translate the lines I chose, I can see why.


For the sincere friend
Who gives me his honest hand.
Those poor people have suffered at the hands of their neighbours since I was 5.

Never smoked a La Habana but my first cigarette was definitely a Number 6.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:32 PM

Number 6 - We landed in Varadero, but I spent the visit (a week) in Cardenas, the same city that Elian Gonzales comes from. It's not a tourist spot, but I wasn't doing the standard tourist thing at the hotels. I was staying with some Cubans at a place which is sort of like a community service and teaching facility. It's run by the United Church community in Cardenas...and they are an excellent group of people, I must say. I had about the best time there that I have ever had in my whole life, and it has left me with a profound love for that country and its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:21 PM

Ah!
The Spanish Unicorn.

I've noticed (Without introducing any "Key" words here) that the man in charge is missing from the news today.
If as I suspect, he has taken a trip overseas then I'm sure we all wish him a safe return to his family in time for Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 06:16 PM

LH ... did you by any chance stay in La Habana when you where in Cuba ?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 05:20 PM

The really cool thing with that song, Jim Lad, is to hear some Cubans sing it...which I have...but they laugh and roll their eyes when foreigners request it, because it has become such a cliche over the past 60 years (in Cuba, I mean).

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 03:48 PM

"Yo soy un gran ejemplo de...de... (Dang! I can't remember the word for what comes next.) ;-)"


Para el amigo sincero
Que me da su mano franca
Guantanamera, guajira Guantanamera?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 02:47 PM

Yo soy un gran ejemplo de...de... (Dang! I can't remember the word for what comes next.) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 02:22 PM

LH ... usted no puede ser una lengua

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 02:08 PM

"doesn't any one out there speak anything other than english?"

I speak Spanish, filidh. Es me segunda lengua. Esta bien?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 01:12 PM

No way on earth that this individual is from Cape Breton, Meself.
Nothing there but decent folks the last time I checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 12:08 PM

" people in cape breton respect our democraticv institutions and are upset at their being ignored bedcause untike a poser like you they have tradition and respect their political foes"

Yeah, buddy, you clearly have great respect for your political foes. Please stop posing as the voice of Cape Breton; you're making the place and its people look really bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 07:05 AM

Heheheee... just opened a PM telling me to stop my weening (which I have) and calm MY Irish temper. It also suggested that "Coalition" might be a song for Jim Lad to pen. Could be; I am sure it would be a good one.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 02:21 AM

"Well ... that's wild Canadian Politics Jim Ladd"

Looks like this spelling my name wrong thing is catching.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: filidh
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 12:15 AM

ps

thanks for asking, i'm new to mud cat. and to the internet
and of laddy boy had emersed himself in cvape breton celtic culture he ought to know what filidh means--but clearly he doesn't --ergo he's a poser

doesn't any one out there speak anything other than english?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM

I guess it's part of the freedom of speech, freedom of expression that they want here in the Cat ... in someways it is disconcerting, but I can see their point. Just learn to roll with it I guess. There has been worst nastiness around here, and they do step in at a certain point.

Maybe they can't determine the geographical area as the individual at issue here as he/she/it could be from outside our known galaxie ...


ok ... let's stick to the subject of the thread.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 11:36 PM

I find it disconcerting too. Seems to me that the Joe Clones here can determine which server (in which geographical area) a post is coming from, can't they? That would at least narrow it down some.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 11:19 PM

Well ... that's wild Canadian Politics Jim Ladd ... goes with the territory .... but I'd say this is pretty mild compared to threads with such topics as an American election, religion (whew, that get's pretty heated) and the the big bad daddy of them all is the great Canadian Seal hunt ... man, now that one is one donnybrook of a topic.

Now ... let's get back to some wild Canadian Politkal banter here .. wake me up around the end of january.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 10:57 PM

It's not that difficult to have two completely different handles without any of the staff knowing.
Having said that, I repeat that it most certainly is not LittleHawk.
I am concerned about the mental stability of whomever this individual is though. He or she addresses me as if I should know them, is pretty damn insulting and when I check, there is no record of this person prior to this thread. Not even a "Hi, I'm new here" type of post.
I'm pretty sure most of you would find it pretty disconcerting but because we don't share the same political views, most of you seem to be okay with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 09:03 PM

L.H. , you have just pointed out something that i have been wondering about as well. When one registers there is information that is required. Now if you went back and tried to register again under a different handle, wouldn't the folks that are doing all the behind the works stuff know that one is trying to register under two different names? Maybe i have it all wrong and I won't apologize for thread drift.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 08:49 PM

And I have a wacky sense of humour, which is why I sometimes post as "Guest, Chongo Chimp" or "Guest, Blind DRunk in Blind River"...but when I do that it's always as a Guest poster, and it's normally a character that pretty well everyone here already knows is one of my joke characters.

I don't even know how one would go about posting under a different Mudcat membername from one's usual membername...I've never looked into that, and I wouldn't want to in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 07:22 PM

I've known Little Hawk almost from the beginning when I joined 6/7 years ago. I assure you and others know as well, that Little Hawk has no need to hide behind another name. He is well respected very knowledgeable.
Adrien
(from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Great grand father from the Margaree in lovely Cape Breton.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 06:46 PM

"I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else by posting over the top, badly spelled political diatribes on this or any other thread."
Good answer. Pity more of you didn't afford those postings the contempt they deserved rather than offering encouragement.
You're right, LH. The coward is not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 06:41 PM

Jim Lad... "I don't think my political savvy is in question, Gnu."

Yes, it is. Simple fact of the matter is, you have repeatedly ignored and pooh-poohed many posts on this and other related threads as if you haven't read them or you think they have no merit.

When you ignore the facts and the requests for you to address the facts, you lose credibility. When you lose sight of the fact that your credibility is in question and you repeat your mistakes, including debasing those whom you apparently feel superior to because of your ability to write posts in proper English (mind, not everyone is as educated as you... or, perhaps, has your eyesight???), you only repeat your incredibility.

Political savvy? You have as much as as your arguements... saying tha same thing over and over with little substance? Address the facts and provide some reasonable input. AND... read the posts of the people you purport to debate. When you ignore true debate, it is to your detriment.

Having said that, I intend to stand down. No sense in talking to someone who doesn't listen. We'll see what happens after Jan 26. If Stevie One becomes a human being, the Coalition will be worthwhile. If not, the Coalition will be more than worthwhile.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM

I don't think it was L.H. at all ... probably was that nasty monkey friend of his .. Chongo.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 05:38 PM

Jim Lad, you had best think carefully about what you are saying. If you press the matter, I can easily get Joe Offer or Big Mick or one of the other clones to confirm for you that I did not make any posts under the membername "filidh".

I have no reason to insult you, I have not done so, and I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else by posting over the top, badly spelled political diatribes on this or any other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 05:10 PM

I don't think my political savvy is in question, Gnu.
Think about it some more though.
Theatrics? Would Mr. Layton risk his chance at grabbing the brass ring by talking "Smack"?
He did and he lost.
Mr. Dion who wanted power at any cost joined in and lost his party.
The separatists are basically in hiding and the Conservatives get to govern without the drama that is Question Period interrupting them on a daily basis.
They had to take the pulse of Canadians is why they gave a warning.
Unfortunately, the media was all over it and before you know it, parliament was in a frenzy with no apparent way out.
Stephen Harper gave them a way out and has been rewarded with a huge spike in the polls.
Mr. Ignatieff has taken over the Liberals and now seems to want to build his reputation as a more co-operative member of parliament.
He gets the same polls as we do.
I'll be interested in how the other two opposition leaders fare but there is one more shoe yet to drop from this affair.
What do you think the young Quebecois make of all this separation talk?
Do you really believe that with the opportunities to travel within Canada being what they are, the next generation wants to isolate itself?
They could get by with there French in France but not too well.
You think maybe they would like to learn English like most of their countrymen and be afforded the same opportunities as the rest?

Littlehawk: You want me to believe that some individual whom I've never before encountered just popped into Mudcat with the sole purpose of insulting me?
Because so far, that's all that he (You?) has done.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM

Ummmm... they want(ed) him to clean up his act or they will(were going to) kick his ass.

Perhaps you should read the thread again, take some notes maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM

"Why did all three parties warn Mr. Harper that they were about to form a coalition?"

Hmmm...(?)   Well, maybe...

They wanted to see him sweat?

Or for the sheer drama of it?

Or they have a tendency to be a tad sadistic?

Who knows? ;-) Perhaps we'll find out some day when one of the present luminaries writes his memoirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 02:06 PM

Jim Lad, you are mistaken. I have no alter ego on this thread, just my own posts under my own name. I have no idea who "filidh" is, but in any case, they are clearly a member of this forum posting under their own Mudcat membername, they are not me or some other member masquerading as a "Guest".

I have not insulted you. Matter of fact, I have agreed with you on some of the points you've made, but certainly not all of them.

The thing we can all find some satisfaction in is this: for the first time in quite awhile Canadians seem to actually be interested in domestic politics and even excited about it!!! That's a miracle. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 01:35 PM

Ask yourselves this.
Why did all three parties warn Mr. Harper that they were about to form a coalition?
Why not just do it?
Doesn't really matter now because the coalition is dead but they all had the option of voting down a financial statement (not a budget) and leaving the Governor General to decide whether or not there should be an election.

Little Hawk: I'm guessing that's your alter ego up there.
Didn't even read it this time. Not one word of it. So if it is full of the usual personal insults, you've wasted your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 10:29 AM

Not only is Harper a hypocrite and a liar but so is Stockwell Day.

"The brutal fact here is that something has happened that has never happened before in Canadian history," Mr. Day, the current Conservative Minister of Trade, said on CTV Newsnet on Tuesday. "And that is two federal leaders have actually signed a deal with a separatist party whose goal it is to destroy the country."

The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

"We will have [in a coalition] a mechanism of permanent consultation empowering the Bloc Québécois on every question of importance, notably concerning the adoption of the budget. This Prime Minister, this government, this party has never and will never sign a document like that," Mr. Harper said.

While in opposition, however, Mr. Harper asked then-Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 to turn to him if Paul Martin's newly elected Liberal government were defeated in the Commons.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority," Mr. Harper said at the time.

Now at the time, the Liberals had 135 seats, the Conservative Party had 99 seats, the Bloc Quebecois had 54 seats and the NDP had 19 seats.

So when Harper said that "the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority," that included the Bloc Quebecois. He could not have formed a minority coalition government without the 54 Bloc Quebecois seats.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203/BNStory/National/home

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 02:43 AM

Actually, for once I agree with Jim on one thing! -- the Bloc's whole existence and mandate is separation. The only other real concern they seem to have is to get and keep the generous MP pensions.   But, as Little Hawk and others remark, Parliament is about getting a majority in the house. The Governor General's sole responsibility, as far as I see it, is to support whoever can get a majority, and therefore can propose a government.   If that government can't survive, then the house is dissolved. Any student of Parliamentary history knows that coalitions were formed from all kinds of bizarre groups, and wild, completely unstable leadership. 19th century British governments were made up, for example, of Irish separatists (Home Rule for Ireland).


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: filidh
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 02:43 AM

well the extreme smear tactic of laddy boy and his real lack of decency duely deserve being cazlled what he is. an ignorant redneck.

it is a tradgedy for canadian democracy that people seem to be buying this right wing nonsense. that harper refusing to meet parliament is some how democratic. there hasn't been a progroagation of parliament to avoid a non confidence bote since cromwell or charles the first. this is an historic destruction of canadian democracy, while the ignorant demogogues scream about coups. the idiocy and spin of calling a vote in parliament a coup.

if this stand we will have permanent damage to democracy in canada.

harper has igmored out democ ratic traditions and got people calling that patriotism--very far riggth, carl rove/bush like right at all costs.

and yeas laddy boy people in cape breton respect our democraticv institutions and are upset at their being ignored bedcause untike a poser like you they have tradition and respect their political foes. but with bullyies like harper and you they leave you no choice but to push back.

now if you live out in bc for a while you see the majority completely controlled by corporate media. when i moved back east i was disgusted with bc.

the largest single prosecution of civil disobiedence protesters didn't occur in george wallaces alabama but with the procesecution of over eight hundred people on the claquoit sound.

the longest and most expensive criminal trial in canadian histoty was over gustaffson lake where a couple of doze natives were keeping a spirit fire permantly out in the remote wilderness and over a thousand police rcmp army and prosecutors were marshalled to stop it.

39 were aquitted and 20 convicted of disturbing the peace!! no one got jail when charge with attempted murder and like charges. this was and is ignored in bc but was front page news for months in germany and the nederlands.

the jury was denied the knowledge that the land was crown land for which they had a legitimate land claim--and they own it now, they were denied knowledeg that the complainant farmer lied that he owned the land==which he didn't the legal aid commission was presured to tell the defense lawyers they wouldn't get paid if they raised land claim issues. all egrigious violations of basic civil and human rights but all ok with thre majority in bc.

they have gone far to the no brain right and don't care about the damage they are doing to democracy and civil society,

ANYONE WHO CALLS A VOTE IN PARLIAMENT A COUP DESERVES NOTHING BUT CENSURE and scorn for betraying traditional democracy and destroying our prescious civil society that so much distinguishes us from the use and even the uk/

shame laddy boy shame shame shame

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 01:53 AM

The point of a coalition is only this: to assume power, at someone else's expense...in this case at the expense of the Conservatives. That's what coalitions are about, assuming power. The Bloc has many different political concerns in mind, not just that of separation, so there is no reason why other parties cannot form temporary alliances of convenience with the Bloc. It's just normal politics to do that.

In this case Harper brought in a budget that was completely unacceptable to the Bloc and the Liberals and the NDP. Thus he gave them all a very good reason to form an alliance, and he is the author of his own misfortunes as a result of that.

The Liberals are also the author of their own misfortunes, of course. It seems to usually be the way in politics, doesn't it? Give them some rope and they are all fairly adept at hanging themselves most of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 01:16 AM

No-one has ever considered forming a coalition with the separatists until now. No-one!
Sorry.
That's just the way it is.
Not trying to hurt any-one's feelings.
Despite what Msr. Duceppe claims, it hasn't happened.
Keep his main objective in mind when he speaks.
His goal is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada.
If it's good for Quebec, he'll say it.
Watch Quebec in the next election though.
He has convinced Quebecers to park their vote with him by claiming that separatism was off the table for now.
Now that he has played this card though expect to see a mass exodus of Bloc votes to either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 10:46 PM

As a matter of fact Harper was ready to form a coalition with the Bloc back in 2004, unlike the present situation where the proposed Liberal - NDP coalition only had the Bloc agreeing to support it by not voting down the throne speech and two proposed budgets. Harper is a fucking hypocrite and liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 10:18 PM

All the other parties besides the Bloc are happy to play with the Bloc Quebecois when it is to their momentary advantage, Jim Lad. ;-) This is as true of the Conservatives as it is of the Liberals or the NDP. That's politics. Nothing unusual about it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 09:54 PM

"The Prime Minister had no choice but to call for a cooling off period which is just as legitimate as calling for a coalition."

The prorogue procedure has never been used as a device to rescue a leader from a non-confidence vote in parliament. It's original function was to terminate a session of parliament when there was no longer a reason for it to sit, ie. all the bills presented in the throne speech had been passed and there was no outstanding house business to attend to. Harper has set a precedent which is a blatant abuse of parliamentary procedure and it will eventually come back to bite him in the ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 09:32 PM

"Harper's defensive strategy was to ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to prorogue, or shut down, Parliament until late in January to avoid what likely would have been a vote of non-confidence.

With such unfamiliar words such as "treason" and "coup d'etat" entering the Canadian political lexicon, Chalifoux said he wanted to gauge the understanding people had of what had transpired."

What he fails to touch on, Peter is that one of the parties has a separatist agenda.
It is in their interest to destabilize the government and they were extremely successful in this instance.
Add to this that the main party to head this coalition was in complete disarray and have since changed leaders.
The Prime Minister had no choice but to call for a cooling off period which is just as legitimate as calling for a coalition.
If one side chooses to play from one of the lesser used pages then they have no complaint when another party uses an equally obscure rule from the same book.
Ed: Walmart intends selling those small $2.500 cars from India.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 05:23 PM

Actually, these aren't great questions. If this was over the phone I might have got the head of state one wrong -- I might have answered the Governor General until I had a minute or two to think about it. The last question is totally skewed by the fact that the veto role of the GG has been in the news so much, without much historical background.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM

If you take a car apart (as they do in body shops) , there is not really that much there. I suspect we are paying for investments like environmental stuff, style design and safety technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 04:58 PM

Fascinating, isn't it? And a bit sad too.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 04:54 PM

Canadians don't understand political system: survey
Updated Sun. Dec. 14 2008 4:26 PM ET

The Canadian Press

TORONTO -- D'oh Canada! We hardly know you.

The prime minister is not our head of state. We are not a representative republic. We do not elect our prime minister directly.

A new survey for the Dominion Institute taken in the aftermath of this month's political crisis in which the word "prorogue" was dusted off political science textbooks suggests a woeful ignorance when it comes to our system of government.

For example, results of the Ipsos Reid survey show 75 per cent of Canadians asked believe the prime minister, or the Governor General, is head of state. Bzzzz -- wrong.

It's actually the Queen.

Only 24 per cent managed to answer correctly, according to the poll provided exclusively to The Canadian Press.

Marc Chalifoux, executive director of the Dominion Institute, said he decided to commission the survey in light of the furor caused when a coalition of opposition parties threatened to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government.

Harper's defensive strategy was to ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to prorogue, or shut down, Parliament until late in January to avoid what likely would have been a vote of non-confidence.

With such unfamiliar words such as "treason" and "coup d'etat" entering the Canadian political lexicon, Chalifoux said he wanted to gauge the understanding people had of what had transpired.

"Canadians certainly were interested by what was going on in Ottawa, but lacked in many cases the basic knowledge to form informed opinions," Chalifoux said.

"We found a lot of ignorance."

The institute drew up four basic questions:

-- Who is the head of state?

-- How can Canada's system of government best be described?

-- Do Canadians elect the prime minister directly?

-- Can the governor general can nix a prime minister's request for a new election?

"These questions we're asking aren't just trivia," Chalifoux said.

"These are part of the basic tool kit of knowledge that citizens need to function in a democracy."

Given a choice how best to describe the system of government, 25 per cent decided on a "co-operative assembly" while 17 per cent opted for a "representative republic."

Canada is neither.

Only 59 per cent correctly picked constitutional monarchy.

In a similar vein, 51 per cent wrongly agreed that Canadians elect the prime minister directly.

In fact, Canadians elect local members of Parliament and the leader of the party with the most members by tradition becomes prime minister at the request of the governor general.

"Our school system needs to be doing a better job of training young people to be citizens," Chalifoux said.

One question that did elicit close to unanimous agreement was about the Governor General's power to refuse to call an election at the request of a prime minister who no longer enjoys majority support in the House of Commons.

A full 90 per cent responded -- correctly -- that the Governor General does have the power, which Jean may yet be called on to wield if the opposition coalition does defeat the government with a vote in the Commons.

Overall, the survey found the lowest levels of knowledge in Quebec -- 70 per cent of Quebecers, for example, wrongly believe Canadians directly elect the prime minister. Only 35 per cent of Atlantic Canadians made that mistake.

The survey of 1,070 Canadians done Dec. 9-12 is said to be accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 06:15 PM

Canadians would.
Wow! Just heard a journalist on CBC say much the same thing about Japan and India as I did only he finished off by saying that to meet North American standards, they'd end up costing $20.000. I disagree with the last part but am encouraged to think I'm looking in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:51 PM

<$10k. Yes, but no American would buy such a cheap vehicle without air conditioning and Seriously Stunned Satellite Radio? Would they.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 12:51 PM

a) I'd expect that the Japanese and Indian (Yes, Indian) manufacturers are watching this very closely.
They could build new cars for less than $10.000 and create plenty of jobs but the days of collecting $70 per hour for pushing buttons will be over.
b)I believe that all three companies are about to fold whether they get a bail out or not. That's why I say to put a lien on all of the inventory.
Then the government seizes all of the vehicles when a plant closes for more than thirty days or defaults on a payment.
Sell the vehicles to Canadians at half price.
The banks win.
Older fuel hogs would disappear in huge numbers.
Foreign car sales would drop for at least five years (By which time the new factory owners are up and running) and the voting public finally gets to feel like a winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM

Interesting stuff you say in your post, Jim Lad. I would actually be in favor of an all-party coalition (in a sense), because I favor a system that passes legislation only if 2/3 or more of the parliament supports it. That would normally require some sort of coalition which represented a broader range of viewpoint than any one party can provide. I don't really believe in the present system of dividing a parliament up into competing entities called "the government" and "the opposition". What I want to see in government is a spirit of mutual cooperation based on a desire to find solutions together, not deliberate opposition.

But that's not the system we have. Our system is based on maintaining permanent division and conflict...as is the American system of a republic. Permanent division and conflict is not a good basis for a relationship or a family...neither is it a good basis for a society, in my opinion.

As for the recession....in my own case things are quite a bit better right now than they have been for some time, even though Ontario itself is suffering badly in terms of job losses. Things are better for me because I run an export business...and the Canadian dollar has gone back down after its recent historic high...so the American dollars I get paid in by my US customers are now providing me a good exchange rate in Cdn $ again like they used to a few years back. Furthermore, gas is cheaper now, and that also helps. How long this will continue is uncertain, of course, and the recession in the USA may cause my customers to decrease their purchases...but it hasn't done so yet.

If there are all those jobs in the West then as you say there will be much movement of people from the eastern parts of the country to out west, and that's the way it naturally goes. Ontario will gradually grow less influential as the population increases in the western provinces. I don't have a problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 12:01 PM

I was tempted to buy a new car (10 yrs old) and truck (11 yrs old). When you can replace them in kind, with new and improved, for about $15k less than "regular price", it almost makes sense. Especially as they may be the last vehicles I ever own. Of course, resale/trade-in of the existing is down as well. So it's still a cash outlay in the range of $50k. Make a nice downpayment on a rental property and I am in a great location. Lot of elderly people in my neighbour, too... and all this crap going on just might make some property available.

(No... I don't mean hard times... I mean heart atttacks.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM

" ... that's how we as a race have survived."

To tell the truth, I had not yet begun to worry about the actual survival of the human race. I was more concerned - selfishly, I admit - about the prospect of myself and those who are near and dear to me falling into abject poverty. And before this prospect, the thought that the human race will carry on does not provide me a great deal of solace ...

"What those in Ontario are feeling right now is what the Newfoundlanders felt decades ago."

And that is a good thing? An important difference is that the collapse of the auto industry would be an economic disaster for the whole country - I suspect, even BC - not just one province.

"even unskilled labour is up around $30 an hour."

In Calgary, unskilled and semi-skilled labour jobs are being advertised at between $11 and $18 an hour, with most around $14/15. That's my impression from watching the ads recently.

"it really is a much different landscape in BC"

Well, let's hope it stays that way when we all start landing in there!

"I better get that water pump changed on my truck. May not be any parts for it in the near future."

On the contrary, the market will soon be flooded with (second-hand) auto parts - and autos - and pots and pans - and family heirlooms -

On the other hand - I'm not an economist. I hope I'm completely wrong. (I was right about Iraq, though).

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 08:19 AM

After hearing this morning news, I guess I better get that water pump changed on my truck. May not be any parts for it in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 05:17 AM

There are cranes still on the Toronto skyline. A few condos have packed it in. The recession hasn't really started to bite yet. But it will.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:29 AM

A conservative/Liberal coalition would make much more sense than a uniting of the left. If a coalition is necessary for stability (And I'm not sure that it is) then where is the sense in excluding the party which received the most support but including the two fringe parties. Dig deep enough and I think that you'll find, that is what bothers most Canadians about the proposed coalition. It leans away from the mainstream.
In answer to the Car Industry problem.... We are nomads. We work a plot until it bears no more fruit then we change our diet or move.
Always have done. Sounds harsh but that's how we as a race have survived.
What those in Ontario are feeling right now is what the Newfoundlanders felt decades ago.
Keep in mind also that this recession everyone is obsessed with is a bit of a fairy tale to folks out west. We are crying out for workers. Businesses are on the brink of failing because tradesmen are being poached by the competition for a few dollars more.
Housing starts are down because even unskilled labour is up around $30 an hour.
Apartment buildings are being halted partway through construction because too many are being built. These are not the signs of hard times.
Maybe difficult for some of you to imagine if you're living in Ontario but it really is a much different landscape in BC.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 12:28 AM

I'm as disgusted with the federal Liberals as you are, Jim Lad. Only trouble is, I think I like the Conservatives even less! I haven't been willing to vote for either one of them in years. Then there's one more problem...they are the only 2 parties who have a large enough slice of the vote to form a government.

Bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:35 PM

Is anyone at all concerned about the many thousands of people employed directly and indirectly by the auto industry? If they are thrown out of their jobs, we are going to find out what an economic crisis is all about ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 09:52 PM

I agree about the car companies. The real strategy is to redesign the Ontario economy around green design and conservation -- flat out government intervention and leadership. That is where the future is. Ontario could be the California of the East Coast. The design companies are here, they could rebuild manufacturing, they could really become the source of original ideas for the future of North America. Building CANDU nuclear reactors and supporting the car companies is completely a waste of time and energy (particularly energy).   It really just makes you weep.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 07:52 PM

I happen to agree with Mr. Ignatieff's approach also and was wondering if this is the man to turn the Liberals around. Maybe someone I could support. I have been Liberal or Labour most of my life.
However, I found that as the day wore on yesterday his constant personal attacks on Mr. Harper became a little tiresome at best.
In short... he lost me.
The rhetoric from Mr Layton and Mr. Dion throughout this episode would go down much better in the WWE than it does in a political forum.
Mr. Ignatieff's "I'll take you down" is a bit over the top and unbecoming of any political leader. Not the kind of reaching out he needs to do if he wants more than 70 seats in the next election.
Let's see if he backs away from this kind of behavior.
On the subject of bail outs.
What would Canada do if they threw billions of dollars at these big three American car companies and they just threw it all in the big pot and still took the jobs out of Canada?
I'd hope that there would be some kind of lien on the factories and all of the inventory.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:29 PM

I agree. Ignatieff is handling it well so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:25 PM

Why is it that every time a politician has a change of heart, strategy or makes a compromise is accused of being, for the lack of a better word, a liar. Harper almost lost the house. Yes, for a short period, he has lost the confidence of the house, but he did what our constitution allows to retain power. The new Liberal leader has said he wants to see what's in the budget before he makes the big move. I happen to like the approach Ignatieff is taking. I also think he is an incredibly intelligent individual and is doing the right thing by playing the "wait and see game".

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:23 PM

Jim Lad, I don't think anyone has missed the rising poll numbers for the Conservatives since the formation of the coalition. I know I haven't. I think those rising poll numbers are based on exactly what gnu suggested:

"the fact that Harper pandered to the public's prejudices by portraying the coalition as being composed of the Liberals, socialists and separatists and it seems that enough people bought that lie through ignorance of the facts"

Which means, in short, that Harper is temporarily winning a political spin campaign because most of the Canadian public don't have either the time or the knowledge of how their own governmental system works to be able to understand what's going on. I'm not inclined to celebrate that, but I guess if you support Harper, then it does call for celebration, doesn't it? ;-)

I expect that Mr Harper will come up with a rather different budget proposal in late January...one that stimulates the economy. If it's different enough from the last one, then the Liberals will decide not to oppose it, it will pass, and a crisis will be avoided for the time being. If it's not, then all bets are off, and the Governor General will again have to make a decision as to what to do next.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:09 PM

Well perhaps I will once again wade into these troubled waters. Filidh raises some valid points on the viewpoints of many Cape Bretoners, myself included, but as a new poster I would ask him not to be too harsh, but would bid him welcome to Mudcat. I do not agree with most of the viewpoints put forward by Jim but I respect his right to his views. When Jim lived on Cape Breton he was well regarded by most and I would welcome his return. He is a fine entertainer, songwriter and singer. Although I only knew him as a fellow member of the Highland Guitar Club and from the Mudcat I consider him a friend.
My opinion of Harper however sinks every day. I never liked the man or his policies but I felt that he was probably quite intelligent. However if he fills these Senate seats while Parliament is shut down it would be almost certain suicide and could only be contemplated by a very stupid person.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

Gnu:
    What you missed I think, was that individuals first post where he called me a dumb redneck as well as using every misspelling of Jim Lad that he/she could come up with.
I have never resorted to name calling. Nor do I respond to the posts where the author chooses to call others names. (Neocon being one of them) When people start that kind of thing, I tend to ignore what they have to say and move on to the next one.
I'm guessing that this individual is actually one of the regulars here with a new Avatar.
Some pretty off the wall stuff with just a touch of common sense behind it. Not too much though.
It doesn't pass the smell test.
So fine. One of you has called me some names and hidden behind a fake name yourself.
Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

It doesn't strike me that getting rid of the Senate is that monumentally stupid. It is essentially useless, a waste of money, and undemocratic. I would favour a completely different system of organizing it, but we can't open the Constitution without all hell breaking loose.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:01 PM

"filidh
For your first three paragraphs, I was quite impressed. And then......."

"I think he's fairly much got it right, although he does rant on..."

"good post filidh !"

So we're all cool with those snide remarks directed at another member, are we? I am a little surprised. Just a little, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:56 PM

He appoints two Senators in three years... and always said he wants to get rid of the Seante (a MONUMENTALLY STUPID IDEA). But, now, he wants to appoint 18 of them in a couple of weeks?

Gee, kinda sounds like he wants to go back on his own word... oh yeah, he does that a lot, doesn't he? Even BROKE HIS OWN LAW when he called the last election. WTF is wrong with this arrogant asshole?

Although, as John Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show, he's got great hair. Must be using his brain cells for growing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:12 PM

"the Conservative numbers have risen drastically."

May I offer that I believe the main reason for that is the fact that Harper pandered to the public's prejudices by portraying the coalition as being composed of the Liberals, socialists and separatists and it seems that enough people bought that lie through ignorance of the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:04 PM

I would be interested to have the name of a single opposition member who would be interested in doing what you propose. No one in the NDP would remotely consider it, and the Bloc is hardly likely. So that leaves Liberals. Who? I think this is a canard (as our fellow Quebecers would say).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:36 PM

Well then, Jim Lad.... you should be able to answer my question.

And, I would also like to ask you what things I missed, if you care to answer that as well.

Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:35 PM

good post filidh !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:14 PM

200
You know, as the sole Conservative voice on this thread, it's easy to miss the fact that throughout the recent events, the Conservative numbers have risen drastically. They are ahead of the Liberals by 20 points and 76% of Canadians are opposed to the coalition.
That being said, Mr. Harper has rung the bell to start the second round.
One rival is out and the coalition is in tatters. Dead in the water.
Today he has announced that he will be filling the 18 vacancies in the senate to "Better reflect" the political make up of the house of commons. I referred to those vacancies way up there somewhere.
Watch how this one unfolds.
If the opposition makes a big enough fuss he will come out of this with a Conservative majority in the house.
Remember too that I had suggested there may be some floor crossing?
There are a number of opposition members who would gladly accept a position as Senator (Under Mr. Harper's terms) as a viable way out of Mr. Ignatief's or Mr. Layton's leadership and a separatist coalition.
Too clever by far but in the face of the Liberals using backroom deals to proclaim a leader, I'd have to say that the opposition party is in a glass house.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:22 PM

Go on then ...199

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:10 PM

That's it, Peter. In a nutshell. I think you are correct that there is more danger of Alberta separating than Quebec. This country desperately needs a strong federal government to hold it together, just as you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:07 PM

My objection to the neocon approach in Canada (apart from its intrinsic flaws) is that it is much more dangerous in a country that absolutely requires a strong federal presence to hold together. Americans can muck around because they already fought their civil war, and they have this coherent myth they adore. Canada is not like that. It is inherently deeply fragile as a country. The great threat to Canada is provincial separation -- first Quebec, and then Alberta. Alberta is much more likely to separate than Quebec. Harperism is where it is leading to (ironically, Harper is, for example, the only person who can do anything about Alberta's climate change problem without breaking the place apart. Anyone else who tries to do anything that threatens Alberta's oil revenues will precipitate things.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:47 AM

You missed a few things, Gnu.
Looks like you've recovered just fine though.
I had been wondering if this was you having us on but you usually save that kind of stuff for April Fools day.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:18 AM

I think he's fairly much got it right, although he does rant on...

The Canadian society we have was created from the beginning by the diametrical opposite approach to American laissez faire tactics (in opening up the frontier, and everything after that). It resulted in a far more peaceful, socially progressive, and orderly society in Canada...with far better social protection for its citizenry. The neocon movement since the early 1980s has been attempting to systematically dismantle and destroy that type of society by privatizing, de-regulating, and turning over the public services to privately owned profit-driven entities (corporations) so that a few rich people can get much richer and everyone else can get poorer. To do that is to imitate the American system, which is one hell of a bad idea. The present financial crisis the USA is in right now is a direct result of the laissez faire policies of the neocon revolution launched by Ronald Reagan, and we do not need politicians in power who are loyal to those policies, in my opinion. I think Harper is a believer in the neocon approach, therefore I cannot support him. I don't object to him on a personal basis, I object to him on a policy basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 09:27 AM

Jim Lad... "He lost me at "Redneck"."

Who? Guess I missed sommat???

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 07:51 AM

filidh
For your first three paragraphs, I was quite impressed. And then.......

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:04 AM

Just give him the thread, Meself.
He lost me at "Redneck".

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:03 AM

Unless you know something about Jimlad that none of the rest of us know, I don't think you have any basis for calling him a 'poser' - what is he posing as? As far as I can tell, he has always been straightforward about who he is, on this forum. Yes, he can be a little prickly on political issues, but that doesn't warrant this sneering attack from - who are you anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: filidh
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 11:51 PM

unlike that poser laddy boy, i actually am part acadien half highland scott from cape breton . too bad he didn't pick up some of the basic kindness and decency of people there. but then a tourist who"emmerses" himself is the bigger cliche down east. they all say how people are so nice . funny how few of them "get it". yeah compared to you.

canada as two founding european immigrant peoples. british and french. this is the simple fact of our history. we ougt to call it three founding peoples, including natives.

for ladd's information(and a few others) the habitants came out by the thousands for guy carleton when the american invasion got as far as the plains of abraham outside quebec city and soundly defeated them. without wich there would be no canada!!!

when i lived in the west--including victoria where my daughter went to school, i noticed that people there know almost nothing about canadian history, but then the neo cons don't want people to remember a canada before they were in existence. don't want people to remembr that canada was a creeation of government intervention, from the subsidy of the canals to the railroads to the government hybridzation of number one northern fife wheat before which there was no wheat that would grow on the prairies.

harper and his neo con allies funded by the oil industry have created an anti canadian monster which will leave us with no distinctiveness that was created by the bicultural liberal policies with the multicultural policies for all immigrants.

and yes parliament is elected to vote . even the reform used to want free votes in parliament but now that that might stop harper they now have the least free votes in canadian history. all this covered by the smoke screen of smear and spin smear and spin.

people shouls read john raulston saul about the debasing of language.
when we let spin doctors change the basic meaning of language the real casualties are truth and honest communication.

A VOTE IN PARLIAMENT IS NEVER A COUP ITS CALLED DEMOC RACY and no amount of spin will change that it will just destroy the basis of civil society

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 08:59 PM

The question is, how does a leader whom we can trust ever find his way to the top of the present political system? And what forces will be brought to bear upon him if he does?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM

unbelievable.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 05:27 PM

thanks bobad... I can understand floods, fires, and maybe snowstorms, but it leaves a lot open in the hands of a few to determine what would be a civil emergency... civil unrest? mass dissent ? native blockades ? When in doubt , use the "T" word... terrorist, separatist, scare-orist.Okay, It seems that an agreement like this was slipped by the public, with little attention from the media, much like the free-trade deal with the heavy handed union-busting Columbian gov't....

it just makes me wonder about the sleight of hand deals pulled off by Ottawa...

now to find a leader who I can trust....

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 01:18 PM

There's something about it here Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM

Where is this mutual response thing? Do you have a reference?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 12:21 PM

Jon Stewart/ The Daily Show, had a really funny take on the situation here.....

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

Amazing that anyone could expect the "coalition" not to kick his ass for such arrogant disregard for Canada, Canadians and Parliament.

Hehehee.... almost ironic that the Yanks will be rid of W at least six days before Stevie Wonderboy MIGHT be de-crowned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 10:06 AM

"mutual response deal with the US allowing troops to cross the border either way in times of 'civil emergency'.... whatever that implies..."

Most likely to help with snow clearing in TO.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 09:52 AM

international as well..... like the recent free trade deal with Columbia.. and signing the mutual response deal with the US allowing troops to cross the border either way in times of 'civil emergency'.... whatever that implies...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 09:52 AM

"... domestic and local..."

Why not free trade deals with other countries?... like he WAS doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 09:49 AM

so this means that Harper can still do important deals, domestic and local without any parlimentary oversight until Jan. 26 ?

now there's a scary thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 02:39 AM

I think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 01:43 AM

Tag out, Jim Lad. Tag out!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 01:39 AM

I bow to your superior intellect and creative use of the English language and am most appreciative of the lesson in Canadian politics.
Thank you.
Most Sincerely
Jim Lad

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: filidh
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 11:12 PM

mr ladd. to call the normal votes in parliament a coup is the kind of exagerated attack dog politics that the usa just finaqlly rejected.. there is no coup and every bloc party member of parliament has the same rights as every conservative member to vote how he wants for the government he wants. to say otherwise is the coup to democracy. the only poll that matters is the election. we just elected a parliament and if harper refuses to cooperate he deserves everything he gets.

it is very disturbing how few canadians understand their own government, especially out west.

moreover the bloc campaigned to not bring forward separation of any kind at the present time and thier support ofany governemt--and the conservatives have relied on their votes over fifty times--can only get the bloc and quebecois used to the idea of cooperatibe federalism.

stopp the dumb redneck smear tactics and spin spin and learn how the government works

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 07:16 PM

Naa, Bob already ditched the NDP, that bridge has burnt (to repeat the bridge theme). They would never have the "traitor" back.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 06:54 PM

"See"
Typo, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM

I'd be glad if he did. I much prefer Rae to Layton.

However, if I was Bob Rae I'd get out of politics altogether and find something more (emotionally) rewarding to do with my time.

If I was ANY of them, I'd do that! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:34 PM

I can sea Bob Rae taking Jack Layton's job.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:30 PM

At least someone had the good sense to talk Bob Rae down off the cliff.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: sian, west wales
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 12:22 PM

Dunno. I'm hearing, 'Jaws'.

sian

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 12:06 PM

So why do I have the Monty Python score ringing in my head?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: sian, west wales
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 11:13 AM

Well, there we are: Iggy it is.

Seat belts fastened, everyone?

sian

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 04:07 AM

They were just building the new bridge when I left.
Crane fell in the water.
What a hoot!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 12:53 AM

I think when they built the bypass bridge to Cheticamp was what burned her bridges a long time ago.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 09:48 PM

I know her brother and his wife but didn't realize the Elizabeth was his sister.
Seemingly she's burnt her bridges in Margaree.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 08:56 PM

Liberal Majority for Quebec. Yahooo! No more elections (hopefully) till 2013.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 05:25 PM

Damn shame that Chongo doesn't have his Canadian citizenship at this crucial juncture...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 04:40 PM

I am very disappointed in Domenic's decision to pull out of the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 03:25 PM

Margaree is the best place (I am a good friend of Elizabeth May's, a denizen of Margaree) -- surprised you aren't gung ho for the Greens.......

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 01:50 PM

And CP has just said Dion is gone today.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 01:41 PM

Ah.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 12:25 PM

To clarify.
Victoria, BC.
Margaree, Cape Breton, NS.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 12:23 PM

I'm in the Highlands, just outside of Victoria on Vancouver Island.
I spent much of my time in the interior of BC as well as about 5 years in Margaree. Of all the places I've lived in, Margaree has become my second home. The likelihood of me ever living there again is very slim but I became totally immersed in the Cape Breton culture which is a wonderful blend of three peoples. The Scots, the Acadian and the Mi'kmaq.

So Iggy gets his way.
Didn't Dion just kick his arse?
What happened to the will of the people?
Does this lack of respect for democracy have its roots within the Liberal party.
See, once you start picking and choosing whose vote counts, you find yourself on a very slippery slope.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 12:10 PM

Iggy Wednesday? Will that be a new national holiday? It would be kind of nice to have a break in the middle of the week for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 11:49 AM

Ahhhh... wha happen?

And, did you hear the news? Iggy Wednesday?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,Joe Kebecker
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 10:34 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wquebec08/BNStory/politics/home

Remember you heard it here before......

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:35 PM

Hey, Jim Lad, which province are you located in?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:35 PM

Must be experiencing bad weather up in Moncton.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM

Ah Gnu!
Have one for me son.






Note to self. "Don't drink and ......"
(Fill in the blank)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:15 PM

The probes are being inserted - he won't remember a thing when he wakes up.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:03 PM

Uh-oh. I think "they" got gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 07:18 PM

I KNOW this is just one more a them there emails, but, what the heck... even tho it has nuthun ta do with the thread topic, it kind

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,Number 6
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:40 PM

I have a hard time trying to understand what cultural identity is ... then again maybe it's just me.

Maybe that is what, and has been rather special about Canada ... we just never really got hung up about 'cultural identity', that seems to be something created in the last 15 years or so ... we just knew we had a common bond in that we are Canadian and we never really thought what that was or is ... albeit all of us natives and descendents of and immigrants from Ireland, Latvia, Scotland, England, germany, Poland, Ukraine, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, black, white Asian ... and on and on.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:26 PM

Yes, it depends where you grew up...and the influence of your family...and various other factors like that. I was well aware that there were a variety of other cultures present in Canada as well, but the two predominant ones in the public arena seemed to be the "English-Canadian" and the "French-Canadian", and they were what appeared to drive the political dialogue as well in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

It was expressed by the well-known term "Two Solitudes".

The fact that this left out the Native Canadians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc...was not indicative of anything else other than that the primary attention of the country was on the great French-English divide which has engaged the minds of Canadians ever since the French and Indian War in the 1700s.

(Native Canadians played a big part in that one, fighting for both sides. The Hurons and various others lost out badly when the French were finally defeated.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:17 PM

I don't recognize the Canada of two traditional cultures of which you speak. I guess it depends on where you grew up. My Canada was represented by many cultures. My neighbourhood included Poles, Ukranians, Italians, Germans, French Canadians and even a few Anglos of British origin. My schoolmates were even more diverse in their countries of origin and included First Nation people. Most of these people were first generation immigrants who maintained many aspects of their native cultures as well as adopting the cultural practices of their chosen country. I consider myself truly fortunate to have lived among this diversity of cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 04:59 PM

I feel very glad to be here too, Number 6, and most likely for the same reasons.

Still, I do remember a time when the country had a far stronger Canadian cultural identity than it does now, that's all. I can't help it that things have changed, and it doesn't mean I don't still love the country now, because I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM

Hey guys .... "because you knew what it was to be Canadian, by God!"

I don't know about you but I feel damned lucky and fortunate to live in this country .... Hell I feel Canadian ... and so does my neighbour who happens to be a Syrian immigrant who received his medical degree in the U.S. .... Like me he loves Canada, he loves the Maritimes and he loves Saint John .... we're Canadian eh.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:14 PM

Good lord, Peter.

I think I must have been sensing the dying echos of that before we moved down to the USA in '58. I know there was something very special in Canada back then, I could feel it. I had a quiet pride in my country then that was profound, as deep as the deepest religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:08 PM

I once asked my mother, who was British, and who married my father during the war, and came to Canada in 1943, what was the biggest change she had seen in Canada during her lifetime, and she said, "When I was a girl, Canadians were the most glamorous people, they gave off this aura of having the world by the tail, they were rough but you felt they knew exactly who they were and where they were going, they had a kind of exuberant happiness. The future was theirs. And somehow it all went away...."

I just about broke out into tears when she said that.

yours ever,

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 02:54 PM

I really miss it, I can tell you. Peter is right that it had a sort of arid, overly sober quality to it (absolutely NOTHING was open on Sunday...), and good restaurants with a variety of foreign cuisine were damned hard to find, unlike today, but in other ways it was just wonderful...because you knew what it was to be Canadian, by God!

My family moved from Southern Ontario to the USA in 1958, when Canada was still undeniably Canada. I came back in 1969. The difference was already very evident, and I have watched the Canada that I knew as a child disappear before my eyes ever since. I love this country, but I can't make out what it has become in the last 5 decades.

I sort of envy the French Canadians, in a way, because their language has allowed them to preserve the vibrancy of their culture. I find them to be very expressive people with a tremendous sense of romance. I get the feeling they have more fun than the English Canadians. ;-) Of course, they always did, didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 12:12 PM

I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

Really? Done and gone? Except in Québec? Maybe we will separate with, or without, Québec. After all, we are Canadian. I am beginning to wonder about the rest of youse.

Nahhh.... just shittin.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM

I also agree with what Jim said about Little Hawk's last post, which was absolutely right.   There really was an AngloCanadian culture, and it was really different from the United States or Britain. The only problem with it was that, apart from the good bits -- e.g. the subdued patriotism, the manners, the whole ethos of it -- it was pretty dreadful psychologically.   The people who lived in it were terribly messed up by the aridity of it.   You only have to read Alice Munro's early short stories to get a feel for its legacy.   I have struggled all my life with deciding whether I miss it or not, and, really, in the end, I don't. I think the infusion of all the other cultures in the world into places like Toronto was the best thing that ever happened -- but multiculturalism (as has been noted) doesn't really give you that core set of beliefs that make up a culture. So we do now live in an Americanized no-man's land.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 03:10 PM

Little Hawk;
            I don't know why it is that I'm so surprised when you make sense. I think maybe you wind us up for a while but can't resist the temptation of dropping the odd gem of real wisdom here and there.
Your last piece was excellent and I do agree with what the others have said about the Maritimes.
Maybe we're getting a little older and moving closer to the big centres or maybe it's the same illusion that fools us into believing that the snow was always deeper and summers never ended. School really was uphill for me both ways and I did actually stub my toe on the top of a telegraph pole. I don't live in the interior any more and if I did, I'd be inside looking out at the snow thereby not participating in the various activities that still are a part of your identity.
I'll be making maple syrup again this year. The prairie farmers will still be opening up the fences for snowmobiles and cross country skiers. There will be a folk night in the local hall (A wood cabin) with its pot bellied stove and spicy hot something in a cup. And some old guy will most certainly stumble out of the woods, drunk as a lord on Christmas Eve just to sleep through Midnight Mass.
Things are changing but as long as you're alive there will be at least one crusty old Canadian holding the fort.
Grin!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 02:39 PM

LH... Tronna? Not in The Maritimes. Down here, it was, and is, Boston and Montréal. Now, if Tronna an' Boston were in the cup, it MIGHT be 50/50 for Tronna.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 02:03 PM

I bet! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: black walnut
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:59 PM

Did anybody else catch the very last (minus New Year's Eve) show of the ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FARCE last night? It was hysterical! They couldn't have asked for better political goingsons to work with.

~b.w.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:37 PM

The maritime region still has it's culture L.H. ... but then again it has and still is quite distanced from the west and Upper Canada.

hell ... saw and heard a school choir singing Christmas carols at the mall today. I noticed some kids in the choir from various other ethnic groups.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:29 PM

Actually, there once was a traditional Canadian culture. I remember it very well from the early days of my childhood. It was divided, however, into 2 very separate parts. There was the French part in Quebec and various other regions where there are large number of French speakers....I wasn't familiar with that part at all, because I didn't belong to it. Then there was the English/Scottish/Irish part which took up most of the rest of the country, and that part I was familiar with, because I did belong to it. Both parts had a distinctly Canadian feel that could not be mistaken for anything else. One was "Canadian", the other was "Canadien". These two aspects of the traditional Canadian culture were ably represented in sport by the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens, the eternal rivals. You had to love either one or the other.

Well, there ain't much left of that culture now. It has been watered down, fragmented, and overwhelmed by a flood of American media and American money and "multiculturalism" and "free trade".

The Canada of today is a pale remnant of the very strong Canadian identity of my childhood, and it barely knows what it is anymore at all...except for the French part. They have been protected by virtue of not speaking the same language as Americans, thus have maintained their cultural identity quite well. This gives them a certain strength which is quite evident in how effectively they play the political game in Canada.

And there you have it. "So, take off, eh!"

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

Would you buy a used car from any of the 5 National leaders? I would not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 09:28 AM

What Canada Is!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 08:55 AM

Cluin
"3refs, WHAT national identity? The one we borrowed from Britain? Multiculturalism IS our national identity".

I'll be gettin back to you on this one!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 08:35 AM

and possibly a putter.... for those long vacations in Mexico

---

that was me.... thinking about the boneyard percs of party loyalty

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:52 AM

No Gnu. You get a driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:03 AM

18 senate vacancies... do I get free parking?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 04:43 AM

Well, the Canadian senate is in some respects modelled on the UK House of Lords. Membership however is structured on a regional basis and is intended to provide some sorts of checks and balances between central governmen and the provinces.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 03:17 AM

I'm fine.
It was an answer to the question "Anyone remember?".
It may have happened that way but I honestly don't remember.
Was busy raising kids then. Still am but I'm not paying them as much attention as I should.
I think actually that Stephen Harper is the first one not to try and stack the senate.
He'd much rather scuttle it.
For the benefit of those from the UK, the senate is modelled after the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:16 AM

Was that an emphatic reaction to the previous post? Or did the roof just fall in on you or something like that? JimLad? You okay?   Jimlad?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 12:06 AM

No!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:09 PM

Anyone remember Mulroney stacking the senate with new appointments so he could pass the GST.

This and the latest debacle concerning Harper are surely moments of shame in Canadian politiks.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:42 PM

Hrothgar: Well told. There are a few differences mind you and a few similarities. John Kerr took it upon himself to replace Gough Whitlam and had also consulted with Malcolm Fraser before doing so. In other words, he just took it upon himself, invited the Prime Minister over, fired him and invited Mr. Fraser to form the government. Unknown to Mr. Whitlam, Mr. Fraser was actually sitting in the next room when he was let go.
The Governor General is not permitted to seek council with the opposition but may only accept advice from the first minister.
The liberals hold the majority in the Canadian senate also. They do stall as many bills as they possibly can but Mr. Harper rattles their cages every once in a while, threatens to put the dissolution of the senate to a referendum and they get back to work. There are 18 vacancies in the Senate and Mr. Harper hasn't seen fit to filling them. It his stated intention to fill those seats with elected senators rather than appointments but he can't do that with a minority government. I'm sure even the Harper bashers here would approve of that move.
Public opinion basically followed peoples political leanings and there was no public outcry of any consequence.
Sir John Kerr resigned within a year, was given a foreign Ambassadorship in some other country (China or Singapore, Can't remember now) and basically plunged into the depths of alcoholism.
Loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen was also a passion for some in Australia at that time though certainly not for all. That's not even on the agenda in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:21 PM

Yep. Apparently not worth the sound of the wind sucking into his arsehole as he proposed it.

I sure hope we don't end up with some sort of Lord High Protector after all the dust has settled.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:20 PM

Right, just like the fixed election date law he passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:15 PM

I think new rules may come into form preventing prorogation being used to avoid a vote of confidence, as a result of this clusterfuck. They will likely be tabled by Stephen Harper, once he's used this situation to his advantage. He won't want somebody else doing the same thing to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: The Lorax
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 08:28 PM

As a friend of mine, who studies African politics, put it:

"Imagine what would have happened if an African leader had tried putting the government on hold to stave off a vote of non-confidence..."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

You are right there Richard, a new and, according to some constitutional experts, dangerous precedent is being established by using the prorogation procedure to avoid a vote of non-confidence. Non-confidence motions could become moot in the future by this precedent. This is the kind of tactic employed by despots in third world countries, holding on to power by shutting down government.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 06:04 PM

The US have no concept of a constitutional monarchy so the importance of the two key issues here are lost on them.

By constitutional convention if Harper had lost a vote of confidence (or equivalent) he would have been obliged to resign as prime minister.   That bit most people seem to have got.

The sovereign (in the case of Canada, by her proxy the Governor General) in exercise of a residual power would then have appointed the next prime minister. Probably the most followed view amongst constitutional lawyers is that that should be the person best able to form a government, ie the person best able to command a parliamentary majority. Whether that should be the next leader of a fallen minority government party (ie another Conservative in place of Harper) or the person designated by a larger coalition is an issue the jury is out on but IMHO the better view favours the latter. This (or a closely related subject) has been a live issue in England twice and there is still no definite answer.

The really exciting point is the prorogation. Technically the Queen prorogues parliament, and does so on the advice of her prime minister - but it is very open to argument whether that should be what happens when the sole real purpose is to avoid a vote of confidence. Since Prime ministers may call general elections (again theoretically by so advising the crown) at times to suit themselves, I suspect that there is yet no convention that prorogation cannot be effected for party political purposes. But I might be wrong on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

3refs, WHAT national identity? The one we borrowed from Britain? Multiculturalism IS our national identity.

Somebody needs to tell Stephen Harper that he isn't President. He is Prime Minister with no real executive power, certainly none to shut down the government—which is what shutting down Parliament has done. He went whining to Momma because things weren't going his way. As leader of the party that holds a minority government, why was he having a secret meeting with the Governor General to decide to shitcan for 2 months the government WE elected?

He took a stupid partisan gamble that he could get a Non-Con vote and blame the fact we were having another election on the opposition. It didn't work. The opposition parties were deciding on another perfectly legal option. It was blowing up in Harper the Sharper's face so what does he do. He padlocks up the company shithouse and goes home (not the first time he's done that). All of this at a time when we can ill afford such uncertainty from our so-called government.

Terrible PM. Maybe he'd make a better dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Hrothgar
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:59 PM

In Australia there are basically two political movements - Labor and the conservative coalitions. Both are conservative, but let's leave that out of it for the moment.

The Australian Labor Party, as their name indicates, tends towards the left. The party itself was actually founded after the industrial struggles of the 1890s (the world's first Labor government was in Queensland in the 1890s - it lasted a week).

The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is generally regarded as sympathetic to big businees, and the National Party, which started out in life as the Country Prty representing farming, grazing, and other rural interests (Yanks, compare it with the Grange parties of the late 19th and early 20th centuries). Effectively, the Liberals have a large majority of coalition seats, but occasionally the National tail does get to wag the Liberal dog.

Labor have a long-held policy of never entering into coalition, but their resolve has never been tested on this point. If it came down to a choice of being in Opposition or being in power with the support of one of the fringe parties, I hope they would be pragmatic.

The constitutional crisis in Australia that bears comparison with the Canadian situation occurred in 1975, when the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labor government under Gough Whitlam. The point was that at the time, Labor could command a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Parliament), but had crucial Budget legislation blocked in the Senate (the upper house) where it did not have a majority.

Instead of observing the constitutional convention of taking the advice of the party that could command the confidence of the lower house, Kerr dismissed Whitlam and appointed Malcolm Fraser, leader of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister pending a general election.

This is a very brief resume of the events of 1975 - there have been several books written and television series made about it, and it will keep being churned up for a slong as anyone can foresee.

The great difference in Canada (as far as I can see) is that the Governor-General there seems to be prepared to go along with whoever has the confidence of the lower house.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM

Correct, but even 44% of the national vote does not in any way justify imagining that one thereby represents a majority viewpoint. And that is why I am proposing a system that requires a 2/3 vote in parliament to pass ANY legislation. And if they can't come up with anything that satisfies 2/3 of the parliament???? Too bad! Go back to the negotiating table and try again till you get it right.

This business of ramming stuff through parliament with a bare majority of votes by people who didn't EVEN manage to secure a bare majority of public support nationwide stinks to high heaven.

The fact is, not one of the federal parties can truly claim to represent the majority of the Canadian public. Not one of them. They have all fallen way short in that respect. Therefore...there is no one of them which has the moral authority or the right to be itself alone empowered to run the country.

This is why I'm suggesting that only a 2/3 vote in parliament carries that sort of authority, and that requires a coalition...or it requires totally free and unecumbered nonpartisan voting by MPs, regardless of their party affiliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:19 PM

Seeing as how the Liberals and NDP received over 44% of the vote combined it can be said that a government formed by them joining in a coalition is more representative of the will of the voters. Remember that in our system we vote for individuals, not parties, who select a leader who they feel will be able to govern with the confidence of the majority in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:04 PM

"But for now Canadians have the party they voted for."

Wrong! The hell they do. ;-) They have the party that 37% of the eligible voters who actually went out and voted, voted for.

It is the peculiar nature of our first-past-the-post multi-party electoral system that allows 37% of the voters in a country to imagine that they are "a majority" or that the people they voted for represent one, JimLad. Such hubris! Or is it just the self-serving logic of convenience?

I would be in favor of a system that works on proportional representation...and furthermore, that requires at least a 2/3 vote of support in parliament to pass any piece of legislation. That would be much more honestly reflective of the will of the people than the system we have in place now...and it would require the parties to have some more respect for each other and make them willing to show some more cooperation and compromise than they are presently inclined to.

As soon as any one party gets a parliamentary majority in our present system, you have a parliamentary dictatorship until the next election. That's not good, regardless of whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals who get to exercise it.

The necessity of a 2/3 vote to approve legislation would go a long way toward preventing that sort of dictatorial arrogance on the part of the governing party. Anything that cannot get the support of 2/3 of the people is probably not such a good idea anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM

Harper defeated no on in a game of parliamentary politics, if anything he has cut his own throat. He is a nasty, vindictive, spiteful man who has made it all about himself, not politics, by trying to weaken the other parties by cutting off their public funding. This had nothing to do with the economy as the amount in question is piddling in the context of the federal budget. What it is about is him trying to get the majority, that he so lusts after, by financially crippling the other parties who are much more dependent on the public funding than the Cons whose coffers are overflowing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:35 PM

Nothing can be done until we here from our cousins to the south. Somebody has to go first and they are not likely to follow our lead. Any stimulus that the U.S. puts into the economy will only be enhanced by our own, not the other way around. We are each others biggest trading partners. The few drops we'll contribute to the bucket, as opposed to them, will be all for not if it's not in line with what the U.S. is going to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM

daylia... "...are really as terrible..."

Let us not lose sight of what Stevie One has done and tried to do since the last election. Seriously, ya can't keep poking the dragon without getting burned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM

Jim... "Like it or not, he stared down three opposition leaders and defeated them at a game of parliamentary politics."

Are you referring to the last election or the prorouge?

No... not a typo... hehehehehe.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:15 PM

WEll, if Harper and Co are really as terrible at leading the country as the opposition makes out, here's a suggestion for them. Start thinking more like the Americans! Specifically, why not follow Bill Clinton's lead and catch 'em with their pants down?

Simple! First, Layton and Dion could plant a video cam linked directly to Peter Mansbridge' desk, in Harper's office. (In the best interests of Canada, of course)

Then, Duceppe could pay some lovely young Madamoiselle Quebecois to sashay round the PM's desk offering the finest of, um, personal attentions, to help him relax and recover from all the horrid stress of the last few months. (In the best interests of Quebec, of course)

And THEN, before you could even say pass the puck, eh? .... whoo-hoooo! Problem solved!!!

:-) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

There is no talk of replacing the Prime Minister.
Embarrassed pollsters have had to admit that the Conservatives are now into majority territory in public opinion polls.
Like it or not, he stared down three opposition leaders and defeated them at a game of parliamentary politics.
Just as you don't like the way he won, the majority of Canadians 72 versus 28% did not like what was being done by the opposition.
Now on the bright side. It is still a minority government and one day the opposition will force another election. Then you can have as much fun with it as you did the last one.
But for now Canadians have the party they voted for.
As for Quebec? Being nice to them got him nowhere.
Maybe a kick in the arse is what they need.
They park their vote with a Separatist party but do not want separation then get all ticked off when anyone outside of Quebec talks about it?
Give me a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:39 PM

Just going out the door but thought I'd mention that I just heard there in talk in the Consecrative party of Jean Charest as a possible replacement for Harper.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:02 AM

To repeat: the essence of Parliament has nothing to do with political parties. The party system evolved, and in the nineteenth century -- as mass politics emerged -- was grafted on to the original system.   MPs are supposed to be elected as representatives of their constituents to debate on behalf of the nation the main issues of the day. This fundamental idea has been crapped on and distorted so badly that people find it hard to believe that Parliament is supposed to be a serious debating chamber (Question Period is a complete travesty).

The Governor General, was, in my opinion, wrong. But I can see the argument that the government should be defeated on a budget issue. Nevertheless, on balance, she was wrong. Anyone who can form a majority in the house should be allowed to.

yours,

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:43 AM

CBC claims that 47% want Harper to remain, (which is the majority), and
a very small percentage want a Coalition with Dion as the leader.
A magazine that I read is polling "Conservatives or Coalition", (leaving
out the question of who's leading the government) and the results are approximately 87-90% in favor of a Coalition, the last time that I
checked with many votes.
I think that the general polls should have an impact on the decision
to form a Coalition or not. (And Yes, Coalition will be in favor. I
doubt that the numbers CBC displayed last night were accurate, if there is at least another poll showing otherwise).

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:20 AM

Really happy that my taxes are paying all these sleazeball power hungry politicians to go on a prorogue ( I never even heard of that word in my life till last week). They get a paid vacation for playing politics while thousands are losing jobs - Terrific

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:08 AM

"Sheila Copps says she has talked to "quite upset" Conservatives and there are "backroom moves" on replacing Harper with an interim leader such as Environment Minister Jim Prentice or Defence Minister Peter MacKay. The one-time Liberal deputy prime minister and Ottawa fixture says she's heard Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon would back MacKay.

Copps also said that, while Liberal MPs remain behind the coalition, doubt is surfacing again on whether Stephane Dion should be the one to lead it because he is stepping down in May. "That is certainly in the mix. Is there another scenario for Mr. Dion where he can leave earlier? I know they are being discussed. It's very interesting."

http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/477298

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:49 AM

Cluin
How much of our heritage and how many of our cultural practices, that have gone on for eons, will be lost before we conclude that this social experiment has cost a nation it's identity? I always thought that after you immigrated, you assimilated!

Assimilate: to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust: to assimilate the new immigrants.

Call me what you will!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:42 AM

Back to Dr. Kieth Martin.
I was listening to CBC Radio interviewing the local MPs on the way to a gig tonight.
Kieth Martin was one of them. The other two were local Conservative and NDP members.
All three were most contrite and apologetic. Speaking to their own constituents well out of earshot of their beloved leaders in Ottawa.
Basically all saying what I had written about last night.
They all have friends on both sides of the house and this is not sitting well with them at all.
They are "Happy" that parliament has been prorogued.
On floor crossing. Two members have come out of Liberal caucus and spilled the beans on what was being said. Members get kicked out of the party for doing this and one of them may find himself in that position. The other (Ralph Goodale) is of higher rank and will probably go unpunished. Or is it unrewarded?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:45 AM

"Lets see him put his money where his mouth is."

The sonuvabitch is putting OUR money where his mouth is. Piss on 'im!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:28 AM

I disagree, 3refs. I think multiculturalism is what makes our country the most important social experiment going on on the planet today. We owe it to the future to make it work, to provide a successful example to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:43 PM

When we subject ourselves to being governed by such as these knaves, fools, and crooks are we not part of the problem? Harper may be an arsehole of the first magnitude but the sad truth is that the alternative dosn't look that much better. A pity indeed! We need a fairer means of representation where the good of the country and its people come first before the good of political parties and their thirst for unlimited power. A pox on them all! (Bill Casey excepted)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:42 PM

I have a problem with the "Any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine!".
I've listened, quite intently, with the arguments of the three opposition parties and for the life of me I just can't get passed the BS. Bob Rae..."everything is fine with the leader(who will be PM) of our party". Isn't Mr. Rae running for the leadership of that party? Jack Layton is Black, White, Gay, Straight, Aborigional, French and English! It all depends on who he's talking to. As for Mr. Duceppe, although I hate separatists, I appreciate the skill. I think if we put multiculturalism out with the garbage and promoted tri- culturalism as a national identity we'd be far better off!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:58 PM

Friggin' clumsy fingers... blame it on "snow shovel cramp".

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:54 PM

"You know, it's a party we are supposed to be electing in this system when we vote, not a "leader"."

Amen. That's the system we have.

Besides, I didn't like ANY of the leaders, almost least of all the leader of the party I did cast my vote. I voted for my local MP... the guy I trusted and wanted to represent me in Ottawa.

Or at least the lesser of all evils. What i hated about the last election was that I was being forced to vote AGAINST something rather than FOR something.

When I was watching the debates leading up to the election, especially to round-table one on TVO, I was disappointed that nobody asked the most pressing question I had: "If the result of this election is another minority government for the Conservatives, likes it looks to be (and turned out to be), are you people going to get to work with the government WE choose and stop dicking around playing partisan politics, or are we goung to back in this same situation in 2 years facing another election?"

Little did I think it woul;d be more like 2 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:26 PM

Oh I know this one... Mr Harper came out of Rideau Hall this morning and saw his shadow.....

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM

Except.
We decide are own politics. Yes this.....No that!(or, Oui ceci ..... qui non!). We then join a party. Attend a convention. And elect the leader of our party. Vote!!!!! And then we go to the White House...errr Parliament!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:11 PM

You know, it's a party we are supposed to be electing in this system when we vote, not a "leader". We don't have a president here, we have party leaders who are selected not by the public...but by their own party's serving members in caucus and convention.

I think that Canadians are losing sight of that, and some of the politicians are losing sight of it too. Harper has been governing as if he were an American president. He is not a president. He is a temporary representative of his party, same as Dion, Layton, or Duceppe. His party chose him, not the public. He is not the leader of all Canada or of Canadians, he's the temporary leader of his own party. Period.

In a parliamentary system one man does not rule. Parliament rules. Parliament is composed of ALL the parties, not just the one with the most seats. In a minority government the party "in power" MUST get cooperation from at least one other party on major legislation or it is no longer able to govern effectively, and it must either step down or call an election.

That's partly what this mess is about, the fact that the Conservatives have acted as if they already had a majority. It's also about all of them (the parties) trying to grab whatever advantage they can, needless to say. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: The Lorax
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:05 PM

Peter T wrote: "Boy, Stephen Harper is even more of a slime than I thought. To save his hide, he's turned this into a West-East separatist issue: break up the country why don't you Stephen, known to posterity as "Wrecker of His Country"."

That's spot-on, Peter! Harper is deflecting the issue of the government's complete lack of confidence in his ability to handle the economic crisis (not to mention the fact that he was caught red-handed spying on the NDP) by turning around and basically saying "Hey, everyone, look! Scary separatists!! OOOOH!!!"

This is not about Quebec. This is about an ego-tripping power-hungry man who will stop at nothing in his quest to completely re-construct the nature of Canada's parliamentary democracy into a tool for forwarding a conservative, uber-capitalist, republican agenda.

And, by the way, I think he's making the West look bad too.

The Lorax.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM

CANADA
FederalGovernment-Head of State: THE representative of THE Queen for all Canada is the Governor General-Her Excellency Michaelle Jean
PERIOD!

I'm just lovin it. I remember well when Her Excellency was appointed.
All those dweebs on T.V. and radio, with all that dribble coming out from under their noses, saying "Oh it just ceremonial, it doesn't really count as anything". The people have spoken!!!!!!!

Consider our choices. A guy who's supposed to quite in months. Another guy who wants nothing to do with Canada except use our money when they separate. Or a guy who's so slippery, I'm glad I was wearing spikes when I was introduced.

Now "All That" being said, how could we give the power of the country and all that stuff we ain't supposed to know to any of them!

If we have to.......I'm ready to vote again!

ps
The Monarchy still lives in Canada! Her Excellency, served her Queen well!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 01:27 PM

Jan 26... now THAT is a vacation!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

I'm listening to CFAX right now and have yet to hear one caller disagree with the Governor General.
Now is the time to cool off and enjoy the festive season with their families.
To listen to their constituents and address their real concerns.
And a time when the politicians can approach the leaders with their own concerns.

Dianavan: You neglected to mention. She is HOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:17 PM

That should make for a more peaceful Christmas....I hope? I gather there will be a blitz of government political messages on radio and TV like a mini-election, but I won't be bothered much by that, cos I don't waste my time on radio or TV. I waste it on the computer! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:05 PM

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will visit the Governor-General at Rideau Hall early Thursday morning when he is expected to ask that Parliament be suspended, likely until the Conservatives can bring down a budget in late January.

Well, well.

It seems the Conservative fears have been put to rest by our Governor General, who, at the request of Harper, has suspended Parliament until January to give him an opportunity to bring in a budget.

Harper keeps talking about "working together". Lets see him put his money where his mouth is.

For now we can rest until then and enjoy the holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:52 AM

meself said,

"a Governor-General who has no background whatsoever to making this sort of a decision..."

Actually, its part of her job and she is very well educated and quite capable of making the decision according to parliamentary rules and constitutional guidance. Thats one of the reasons why we have a governor general. Somebody has to sort this out.

Azizi

You might be interested in knowing that Michaelle Jean is the daughter of a refugee mother from Haiti. It was a great day for Canada when she became Governor General. I am overjoyed that the future of Canada is now in the hands of a woman of colour. Above all, she is an excellent communicator who is fluent in five languages. I think she can handle this and wish her the best.

"Ms. Jean has won numerous honours, including the Prix Mireille-Lanctôt for a report on spousal violence; the Prix Anik for best information reporting in Canada for her investigation of the power of money in Haitian society; and the inaugural Amnesty International Canada Journalism Award. She has also been named to the Ordre des Chevaliers de La Pléiade, by the Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue française, and has been made an honorary citizen by the City of Montreal and the Ministère de l'Immigration et des relations avec les citoyens of Quebec in recognition of her accomplishments in communications."

http://www.gg.ca/gg/bio/index_e.asp

Personally, I will enjoy seeing Harper take in in the ...

He is despised by his own Parliament. Anyone can do a better job of team building. Canada does not need Harper. He is a liar and a destructive SOB.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:40 AM

Boy, Stephen Harper is even more of a slime than I thought. To save his hide, he's turned this into a West-East separatist issue: break up the country why don't you Stephen, known to posterity as "Wrecker of His Country".

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:57 AM

tears of laughter. Parliament is pugilism (thanks for the word). If they haven't been pugilistic up to this point, then they have been sitting earning their checks to no purpose. Anaesthetised eunuchs.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:45 AM

"I don't get this -- what is he in tears about?"
I think Little Hawk just answered your question, Peter.
Whether this politician has inherited his values from his parents or whether they are entirely his own, he does have a creed.
Does anyone doubt Ted Kennedy's sincerity? Just an example that most here can appreciate.
It is being reported that there are several MPs on all sides who are caught up in this spat with absolutely no say in the matter.
Many of these politicians are following a creed that is a part of their DNA.
Now they are being ordered to collaborate with those whose views are the complete opposite to their own and to attack, without mercy, their colleagues across the floor.
These people dine together 5 days a week and socialize most evenings.
They share more meaningful conversations with each other on subjects which ignite their passions than they do with their own spouses.
Share the same hotels, gymns, cafeterias and churches on a daily basis.
And now they are told by four power hungry pugilists to go for the throat?
Meanwhile, the corridors of power are bedecked with the holly, cedar bows, candles and Christmas lights.
You may even shed a tear yourself under those circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 10:51 PM

For sure, JimLad, it's only politics. ;-)

I think most people acquire a sort of tendency to favor or oppose a specific party from their parents (I'm sure there are some exceptions to that, though...a few probably go directly against their parents instead).

At any rate I know my mother acquired her hatred for the Liberals from her parents....although she IS a social liberal, for gosh sakes! In fact, she's a socialist! My father was essentially apolitical, aside from retaining a deep hatred of fascists and communists both (he acquired those feelings in WWII).

My mother, despite being a socialist, detests the Liberals so much that she will vote either Conservative OR NDP, but not Liberal! Isn't that bizarre? It stems directly, I think, from the fact that her family were upper middle class Protestant Scots, and they figured that the Liberals were allied with...the French...the Quebecois...the Catholics....and various other cultural groups which they did not identify with. Accordingly, their instinct was to support the Conservatives.

But she's a socialist....so she liked the NDP too! I think it's hilarious. ;-)

Me, I'm fairly much a socialist, so I used to like the NDP, but I think they have badly lost their way in the last decade or so, and I think Layton's a loose cannon. I regard the Liberals to be corrupt and often very phony....but...I disagree profoundly with the social and fiscal philosophy of the present Conservatives even more than I disagree with the usual phony baloney of the Liberals.

I'm disappointed in all of them, but I'd rather see anyone else in power right now than the Conservatives...not that I think they're bad people by any means...I just think they're on the wrong track, that's all. I don't agree with their slant on foreign policy, I don't agree with their slant on domestic policy.

Whoever gets elected or takes over, though, I don't envy them, because they've got a very tough situation to deal with now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 10:14 PM

I don't get this -- what is he in tears about? That his own party gets into power? Does he think that the Liberals will do so badly that the voters will repudiate them forever when they get the chance? We're talking 2-3 years here -- a lot of blood can flow under the bridge in 2-3 years. And Stephen Harper will be gone (and look around at the rest of the Tories, it is to laugh).


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 09:54 PM

Mike Duffy went on to say that one of the Liberals whom he had just interviewed and who had been calling Stephen Harper for everything, came to him in tears,during the break and asking Mike and the rest of the media to please help them find a way out of this. The politician in question has more than twenty years experience.
Meanwhile, Dr. Kieth Martin, a Liberal and my representative has been the first to ask the Government to find a way to reach across the floor.
His constituency/my home is as far west as you can get in Canada. He won the last election by 27 votes but I really don't think it's the fear of losing that bothers him. It would seem that the farther west you come, the more anger there is towards the Separatists. Don't know why, that's just the way it is. The man must be taking a lot of heat at home.
Imagine though. A veteran politician actually in tears for the position that has been thrust upon him. Someone like that..... I'd vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 08:19 PM

Still 'her' - a Governor-General who has no background whatsoever to making this sort of a decision (thank you, Paul Martin) on our behalf ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 08:09 PM

All of a sudden there is talk that there are some Liberal m.p.'s that are upset with this arrangement of a coalition. Brings to mind what Jim mentioned earlier up on this thread. Not necessarily Justin of course. Don't think it would happen though.

"My guess is that Justin Trudeau will bring eight or nine disgruntled Liberals across the floor thereby giving the Conservative Government a majority."

Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 07:51 PM

I don't think the Governor General has any option other than to ask Stephane Dion to form a government, if he convinces her (it is still 'her'?) that he has the support of a majority of MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

Actually LH. Back then I was a Liberal supporter.

I scanned through what you wrote but am extremely uncomfortable with your level of anxiety.

Chill out, Bud.

It's only politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 04:03 PM

You are devastatingly accurate and to the point as always, Peter. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:43 PM

The Governor General has the last word. She is the representative of the Crown, which the Prime Minister is not (unlike in the US, where the President is the Head of State). The Crown is the "spiritual" essence of the country -- which is why it is, for example, The Crown vs. X in courts. If the coalition can get a majority in Parliament, and the Governor General agrees that they should have the right to try and form a government, that is the Crown's prerogative.

Stephen Harper's version of this is completely ridiculous and self-serving. In fact, it reveals something very interesting about how neo-cons think about government -- as far as they are concerned, the executive branch is everything (which is why George W. did what he did), because government is only legitimate in dealing with security and the military. Old line conservatives would be totally appalled by this.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:34 PM

Ah, but every hoser imagines himself to be a winner....and thinks it is the others who are losers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:19 PM

Jim... so, what yer sayin is that there are winners and there are hosers?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:16 PM

You're seeing it directly through your partisan mindset, JimLad (as are we all). It's been frustrating the hell out of a majority of Canadians for some time now that our multi-party system results in about 37% of the (voting) public winning each election and thereby running the country as if they were a majority (of the voters), which they are not.

Do you recall when the conservatives (small "c") in this country were having their vote split between 2 parties: the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party? Do you?

Conservatives (small c again) couldn't win a federal election to save their lives as long as their vote was split between 2 conservative parties.

You didn't enjoy that, did you? It guaranteed a Liberal Party victory in every election. So the inevitable eventually happened and the two conservative parties merged into one out of mutual self-interest and a desire to win an election.

Now you have the opposite situation, where the NDP and the Liberals, and the Greens are splitting all the non-Conservative votes between themselves and mutually cutting each other's throats by so doing.

The only thing they CAN do under these circumstances is what the conservatives did....they must now join together in some fashion...either by forming a new single party...or by forming a coalition of parties.

Given their respective utter determination to maintain their separate identities, it has to be a coalition.

The natural voting trend in this country, JimLad, is for about 40% of the country to support a conservative social philosophy and for about 60% of it to support a liberal social philosophy. That means that Canadian conservatives are always going to be out in the cold UNLESS the liberals split their votes between 2 or more parties.....(or unless the Liberal Party itself is in office so long and gets so damned arrogant that the public finally turns on them in disgust....which is what used to always happen eventually in the old days.)

No wonder the notion of this coalition bothers you... ;-) It's not because it's undemocratic. It's not because it's unfair. It's because it would cause your guys to lose power. Period. You are moved by your partisan loyalties and your social philosophy (as are we all).

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:16 PM

Maybe the government could enter a public-private-pot-partnership... a P4! Hehehehe.

Oh, yeah, right... they did that already... forgot... sorry.

Say no to P3s... and P4s.

Now, if a drug company grows pot for cancer patients, would that be an MP3?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM

If I smoked this would be the time to do a splif then I'll understand this a lot clearer.
Lol Jim, that was great in this big mess.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:55 PM

Finally figured it out.
If you get the most votes and the most seats then you win but should have no say in how the country is run.
However, if you lose, you win because collectively you won more than the winners who are really the losers because they didn't win enough even if it was more than the losers hitherto known as the winners.
Makes a lot of sense if you're a loser!
So what a governing party has to do if they want to win is to call an election and lose. This works even better if winners get more votes than they did the last time because ...... damn! I knew it when I came in here... where's me pills?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:41 PM

People's reactions to this can be easily predicted by the following criteria.

Do they normally vote Conservative? If so, they're very upset about it.

Do they normally vote for anyone else BUT the Conservatives? If so, they're delighted.

I'm delighted, needless to say... ;-) Brian Mulroney (and Mike Harris) finished the Conservatives for me for all time. I can't imagine ever supporting them again in the forseeable future. (I did support them enthusiastically the first time Mulroney ran for office.) Their economic and political philosophy of corporate greed, de-regulation, and privatization of public resources is exactly what has put the entire world into the great financial crisis it is in right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:37 PM

I thought the GG had no real say in it.

In any case, I should think that shutting down until the New Year is exactly what they all want... a long vacation at the taxpayers' expense. Nice work if you can get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM

Probably wise, Meself.
Let them cool off for a month, vote down the budget and take it to the people. The problem with that though is that the Liberals have neither chosen a leader nor do they have the funds for another campaign. The aeroplane is still in the shop but I think the tank was half empty when they had it towed.
Note Mike Duffy doing some serious backing off yesterday when he finally realized it was promoting the separatist cause.
Ed: Australia has a different voting method and are more prepared for a coalition for that reason. When I was there, you were required to vote and had to rank your preferences in order.
I think if you do it right you win a T-Shirt.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,Joe Kebecker
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

It's all about Quebecs retaining power and control over Canadian Politics and money, got nothing to do with democracy....

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 12:57 PM

I think the GG will have to do what the Prime Minister asks. We can't expect her to over-rule the top elected official in the country. If she does as he requests, she will appear cautious, prudent, and perhaps, to some, timid - but if she were to deny his request, she would leave herself open to the charge of partisanship, and would thus bring discredit to her position. And that would be the sort of thing that could provoke a real constitutional crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 11:03 AM

The following is a letter that was sent to the Governor General by one of our members. I am sending off one of my own to add my voice to the sentiments expressed therein. If anyone wishes to do the same the GG's email address is: [e-mail]. The correct way to address her is:
Her Excellency
the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada


Dear Excellency,

I am a graduate student in Kingston, and I am writing to you today
because I am worried about the current state of democracy in Canada. I
support the plans for a Liberal / NDP / Bloc coalition. I am not, to
use Mr. Harper's words "Un-Canadian", and I am certainly not afraid
that including the Bloc threatens Canadian soverignty. Indeed, I
resent the suggestion that Quebec is not somehow part of Canada, and
that the Québécois have a dangerous and separate agenda. We are all in
this economic crisis together, and I beleive Mr. Duceppe, as in
intelligent man, understands this. The Bloc Québécois serve a vital
need in our parliamentary system. They have every right to be included
in the coalition.

Another worrisome issue, perhaps more so than the Bloc, is Mr.
Harper's "strategy" should your Excellency allow him to prorogue
parliament. Please don't allow him to spend the holiday season gearing
up his propaganda machine, which is designed to frighten Canadians
with the spectre of a "socialist coup" and a "separatist agenda". How
is spending time getting Canadians riled up and polarized good for our
country? Right now Canadians need real solutions, and real
representation, not attack ads and scaremongering. Stephen Harper is
too concerned with protecting his own ego and his own right-wing
interests to fight for what ALL Canadians need right now, which is
stability and sound economic policies.

The majority of Canadians voted against Harper last October. That
their votes were split between four parties should not necessarily
mean that the ONE party representing the right gets to dictate the
future of our nation in this time of uncertainty. As an educated,
informed citizen of Canada, I implore you to take a stand against Mr.
Harper's fear-mongering and strategies of divison. Giving the
Conservatives time to bombard us all with vitriolic soundbites serves
nothing but the short-term interests of a rogue government clinging
desperately to power. Give the coalition an opportunity to govern
means giving all Canadians a fighting chance to implement real,
meaningful change. In the end, I think that's what 62% of us voted for
in October. It's time.

Yours,
Stephanie Jowett

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 07:39 AM

Good of you to admit it. We could all use more self-appraisal.....

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 07:28 AM

Well... I see by my last post and by counting the empties this AM that it was ME who was wild last night. Sorry about that. I'll try to stay on the thread topic and try to tone down a tad.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:20 AM

er, and Canadian business does best, how is that? We have practically no research and development; the core resources are owned by the United States; and Ontario is practically on its knees before a dying auto sector.

The only reason why Canada has not yet fallen into the pit is because of government banking regulations restraining the financial sector from being as greedy as their southern compatriots, spurred on by the neo-cons whose last bastion of power is Stephen Harper and the rest of his dinosaurs.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:02 PM

A shame that Harper is so colorless and fails to garner strong support.
The clowns from the other parties will be very bad for Canadian business.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:32 PM

Ed.
I think that maybe Toronto out does us with the Strip Bars now. But we still have some mighty fine looking ladies. Especially those coming in from the North Shore.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:26 PM

Anyone from NZ or Australia on line to explain how well coalition governments work there?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM

"La Belle Province still had over 25% of the population of Canada. And, over 50% of the balls"

....and may I add many well dressed and attractive women, and 90 percent of Canada's strip bars.....many on St Catherines Street in Montreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 08:28 PM

"BTW, the language capabilities are law at present."
Well, kind of. There is a legal document that immigrants have to sign but there are no language police for immigrants.
In other words, they don't follow up with it.

As for Mr. Trudeau; boy was I wrong?
Guess it's up to the ladies to provide some sanity now.

Interesting times indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

Terry... "Although Quebec attracted a high number of immigrants, because it had its own rules,...."

ATTRACTED????? WTF? Immigration? Separation? You don't know the flood of immigrants forced upon Québec as part of a perceived assimilation program by English Canada caused the Separatist movement to flourish? That it caused them to pass legislation requiring language capabilities? That.... sweet Jesus Christ... what you said is the absloute opposite of why the Québecois stood up to "English Canada" and said, fuck you... I will not surrender my country to a bunch of corporate sellouts.

Holy fuck! Am I wrong here? Je me ne pas souviens?

BTW, the language capabilities are law at present. But, the crowd down the road from me can't speak either. They got federal $$$ to buy out a lease from a family of French and English Canucks who have been here for seven and six generations, respectively, who built the business. Tell me there ain't someone gettin paid offshore for that fuckin bullshit. And tell the Québecois. Just don't expect them to help out the rest of Canada when the shit hits the fan that they plugged in.

It's Canada INCLUDING Québec. But, it ain't gonna be if all these money whores sell it down the river.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:18 PM

Fascinating situation, however!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:16 PM

Hmmm - the 2007 percentage for Quebec is 23.4, less than 25% but more than the 21% I quoted! As a 'get out of jail' card, I must confess that I said 'the last time I looked' and I was basing my figures on the early 2000s when I used to write 'scholarly' articles on Quebec's place within Canada (my mate Stephane Dion used to ask me to send them to him - honest!). At the time there was considerable fear that Quebec would drop below 20% and this would be seen as highly symbolic by politicians in Alberta and BC (you know, people like Klein and Harper - whatever happened to them?).

Although Quebec attracted a high number of immigrants, because it had its own rules, the thinking was that they didn't stay,newcomers just used it as a gateway to the rest of Canada. Maybe everything's changed since my days as a professional Canadianist - but I'm not so sure. We are, after all, playing around with statistics and you know what Disraeli said about those.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:07 PM

Can he pierogi Parliament?... and turn up the heat in the kitchen?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:04 PM

Can he pirogue Parliament... up the creek without a paddle?

>;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:57 PM

Well, I have eaten a few "deep fried" clams in my time. And a few smoked Macreaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:44 PM

"Predictions? About Québecers fucking? Heheheheheeee!"

And smoking? And eating EVERYTHING deep-fried?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:36 PM

Terry... "...projections of a continual downward trend..."

Predictions? About Québecers fucking? Heheheheheeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:34 PM

Terry... there has been a census since 2006? Where?

meself... 60% and rising.

And, a quote from the media... "A Facebook group inviting people to join a day-long party of sorts in cyberspace billed as "Stephen Harper's Last Day as Prime Minister" had send out almost 30,000 invitations - with nearly 8,000 accepting as of Tuesday afternoon."

Biased, obviously, but I'll bet it's a higher percentage amongst the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:06 PM

What about the gonad quotient? Is it still at 50?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:05 PM

Last time I checked, Quebec's share of Canada's population had fallen to 21% with projections of a continual downward trend.........

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM

Yes, CC. It is one of the "positives". And, that is exactly what he has done. And, it started long before last week.... before the last election, which he called in contradiction of the mandatory "term of office" HE HIMSELF put forward... blah, blah, blah....

Dunno if THIS was mentioned above... in the past several weeks, he has been globetrotting and shooting his mouth off in a most disgraceful and arrogant manner, telling the superpowers of the world that they should listen to him and follow Canada's policies and example(s)... AND, he has been signing Free Trade Agreements with countries without consultation with Parliament. The arrogance and the treachery have brought together the rest of the political parties who have little choice but to kick his ass. To stand by while he continues to ruin Canada and Canada's reputation is unacceptable.

BTW, last time I checked, La Belle Province still had over 25% of the population of Canada. And, over 50% of the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 03:27 PM

I think this is very interesting, and I'll be paying close attention to it as it develops. The beauty of the Canadian system as opposed to the US system is that if the Prime Minister pisses off enough people, he'll get removed from his position. In the US, the president can piss off just about everyone and still remain in power much longer than he or she should.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:43 PM

It may be a 'power grab', but it's not a coup. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM

You Damn Right it is.

Beer
(Adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:29 PM

All you were voting for, Jim, was an individual to send to Ottawa and who will use his or her judgment on the issues of the day. I'm pretty certain that, constitutionally, political parties don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:07 PM

Didn't see a Coalition Party on the ballot and according to polls, Canadians are 76% against the coup.
All in the way you choose to sit idly by, I suppose.

"You are aware that Quebec is a part of Canada, right?"

Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:50 AM

"What's that old saying about sitting idly by while others' rights are trampled?"

Whose rights are being trampled? As the man said, it's all about who can command a majority in the house. And, if the figure that is being tossed about is correct, the Tories only had 37% of the popular vote. Sometimes the imperfect system works in your favour - in this instance, by allowing you to form a gov. with such a minority - and sometimes it works against you - in this cse, by (possibly) allowing the rest of the House the opportunity to organize themselves so as to take that gov. away from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:45 AM

The nice thing about this situation is that it reminds people that at root Parliament is about Parliament -- who can command a majority in the house -- and not primarily about political parties, which is what everyone focusses on.   It returns some of the fluidity to it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:23 AM

Harper has the right to ask for Parliament to be prorogued but, under the assumption that there is someone else (Dion) who can claim to command the support of a majority of MPs, the Governor General should refuse it and ask Mr Dion to attempt to form a government.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:56 AM

Jack Layton is about as Toronto as it gets.

I think that there is a constitutional issue here after all: whether Stephen Harper is within his rights to prorogue Parliament till the new year. I think it is a Governor General's call, and that always turns constitutional.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:14 AM

You betcha I'm watching Canadian politics! There aren't any buffer states between me and Alberta and any day the Canadian Defence Forces might invade us and, in a sudden swoop, conquer Idaho so that Idaho's Famous Potatoes would become a Canadian product to complement the "Alberta Beef" and "Alberta Chicken" campaigns. Then they'd take away my guns and force me into a French-speaking gay marriage with an Inuit who raises huskies for his on-line pharmacy business.

Besides, I actually care about what's happening to our Northern Neighbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 08:28 AM

Thanks for links to and comments about the current happenings in Canada's politics, particularly those comments about the behind the scenes reasons why Canadians think this is happening. It's unlikely that I would have found these opinions by just reading articles.

I'm not sure I understand the Canadian political system, but I'm trying to get a sense of how it works.

Special thanks to Peter for sharing information about that British Parliamentary slang term "dished". It seems to me that Stephen Harper may have "dished" himself and other people are "dissing" {dissin'} him because of his actions.

Then again, "dissing" has a connotation that the putdowns are unwarranted, but it seems that's not the case with Harper.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:57 AM

Anyone mention that Harper was ALSO gonna take the right to strike away from Public Servants?

Now, when you mess with the PSAC, you mess with the guys that you depend upon to do the leg work of policy formulation and implementation. Mess with the biggest (coalition of) union(s) in the country? The guy must be stunned as me arse!... must???

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:53 AM

good one bobad .... good one.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:41 AM

"You are aware that all three opposition leaders are from Quebec, right?"

You are aware that Quebec is a part of Canada, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:13 AM

"The Conservative opposers are, predictably, pleased. As for the rest - they're just going about their business ... "
I found that interesting during the Clinton/Obama spat too.
What's that old saying about sitting idly by while others' rights are trampled?
Ended in something like "Who will help when they come for you?"
I think you may be in for a surprise though.
My guess is that Justin Trudeau will bring eight or nine disgruntled Liberals across the floor thereby giving the Conservative Government a majority.
You are aware that all three opposition leaders are from Quebec, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:40 AM

"....the British slang verb to dish, meaning ''destroy,'' first noted by the great lexicographer Francis Grose in his 1788 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: ''He is completely dished up; he is totally ruined.'' When the conservative Tories stole the legislative clothes of the liberal Whigs by passing the radical reform bill of 1867, the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, delightedly chortled, ''Don't you see we have dished the Whigs?'

(from William Safire, The New York Times language column)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:34 AM

Actually, I meant "dished". It was a reference to British Parliamentary slang ("Disraeli dished the Whigs"), meaning he out-manoeuvred them in the fight for governance.

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will serve.

And yes, absolutely right, it isn't a constitutional crisis at all, I was hysterical with laughter at the time. Although what the Bloc Quebecois is going to get out of this may precipitate one real soon anyway.

yours ever,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:11 AM

"The Governor General owns the decision on whether to accept the coalition or, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, announce an election."

Yes, I'm sure you're right (I knew I was missing something there). And that's where there is the potential for an actual constitutional crisis. If her call were not seen to be the right one - or at least fairly reasonable - then the role of the office of Governor-General would probably be called into question. She will likely make it clear that she is consulting with the constitutional experts (you and I should be awaiting her call) and the elected potentates before announcing her decision, so as not to appear too high-handed. Fortunately, I don't think that any of the main players would want a constitutional crisis regarding the role of the Governor-General, even if their particular manouverings don't work out they way they would hope.

"As for no-one paying too much attention... Are you still out west?
Folks are fuming here."

Well, from what I gather, the Conservative supporters, predictably, are fuming. The Conservative opposers are, predictably, pleased. As for the rest - they're just going about their business ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:36 AM

So it was business as usual with Harper and his shower of hoors.

Not content to work with the (again) minority government WE the voters (all 55% of us who bothered to show up to vote) wanted and gave them--the same minority they had before the pointless election they put us through last month--Harper and the Regressive Conservatives (again) practiced their prickish strategies of trying to force the hands of the opposition parties to cause us to have another election.

(This, by registering a "Vote of Non-Confidence" in which all the members of the opposition parties, who would make up a majority together, vote against a major policy instituted by the governing party. A Vote of Non-Confidence would necessitate an election being called so that the public could voice their approval or disapproval by voting (again) for their preferred parties..... for the information of those Mudcatters unfamiliar with how the Canadian government is supposed to work)

The tactics are so blatantly self-serving! Jim Flaherty, Conservative and Canada's Minister of Finance, submits an impromptu "budget"--something normally done in the spring, so why do it now?--which can count as a motion which is Vote-of-Non-Confidence-worthy--including an item which he knows the other parties can't swallow. Namely, that all parties give up the public funding they receive to operate. Everybody knows the Liberal Party are broke and require that funding desperately. The Conservative Party are flush and don't need those funds.

This idea is put forward as being necessary because of the economic situation now before us. So it's made to look as if the Conservatives are taking some kind of progressive economic stimulus measures, but actually no action plan is in place or suggested. They just want to starve the other parties, especially the Liberals. They want the Liberals and other opposition parties to vote against it and bring on another election so the Tories can blame it on them. Talk about passive-aggressive!

It's the same old crap Harper and his Party have been pulling since they first got in 3 years ago: continually trying to force a Vote of Non-Con and another election so he can get a majority government and really get to work fucking this country sideways. He finally got tired of waiting and called the last election a year early (breaking one of his own proposed rules in the bargain). But that didn't work out so well for him. Canadian voters gave him the same minority government they did before. And he's been gritting his teeth over it since then.

Yep. Stephen Harper refuses to work with the government WE want! He's going to force election after election until he gets the result HE wants... just like the PQ in Quebec tried to practice with their separation referendums.

If he's pulling this shit now, with a minority, what kind of Rodeo Fuck is he gonna give us if he actually gets a majority? If he keeps this up, he's going to make Brian Mulroney look like Tommy Douglas.

We have a system of government based on checks and balances with opposition parties. Stephen Harper wants to sweep all that away and rule this country like a dictator. And he's willing to pull any kind of weaselly move to do it.

*pant pant pant*

And I'm basically apolitical.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM

Fairly well put, Meself.
Just one little discrepancy.
The Governor General owns the decision on whether to accept the coalition or, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, announce an election.
Regardless of the Main Stream Media rhetoric and given that one of the parties is actually a separatist group, it is highly unlikely that she will accept the coalition. Well, maybe 50/50.
As for no-one paying too much attention... Are you still out west?
Folks are fuming here.
Want to know more about Governor Generals making up their own minds?
Ask some of the Australians here about Sir John Kerr. R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:41 PM

Ha! This is great. ;-) Harper has unintentionally buggered himself with his ill-considered legislation which was arrogant and inappropriate. He acted like he already had a majority mandate from
Canadians, which he most definitely doesn't. Only 37% of the Canadian public voted for Harper's conservatives in that election they just won. Now the other three parties have decided to dethrone them, and I think that's just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:28 PM

Couldn't have said it better "meself".
I to don't think that anyone else outside Canada gives a $hit. Well Maybe the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM

I think the term "constitutional crisis" is overblown for the situation. As someone on CBC put it this morning, it's a "political crisis". The situation (for those outside our borders) is that a minority government is about to be replaced by a coalition government, or so it seems. It's parliamentary democracy. The minority ruling party will be outnumbered by what will be in effect a new, temporary, majority party - the coalition. If this coalition decides to defeat the ruling Tories in a "confidence" vote, then, as I understand it, they will be within their rights to form a new government - with the official okay from the Governor-General (the Queen's representative figure-head), which she could not very well withhold.

A "confidence" vote can be a vote on financial legislation introduced by the governing party, or on a motion of "non-confidence" in the government, which can be introduced by any member.

The situation is provoking no end of excitement in the media, but I don't think anyone else is paying much attention to it. Well, I shouldn't say that: apparently the Toronto Stock Exchange took a dive ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:20 PM

These are very exciting times in an otherwise very boring political game. But the game has gotten very serious. We are now in a moment of time where by a mistake can be very detrimental to each and every one of us. The Game is no longer a Game. It's a Historical event. I only hope that a year or two down the road we don't start saying that maybe Harper was right.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:00 PM

I really didn't think it was about failure to raise the pinky while taking tea.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 09:24 PM

The following is the spark that lit the fuse:

"The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Since then, the Liberals had been in negotiations to form a coalition with the NDP, planning to oust the Conservatives in a confidence vote."

There were also a couple of other contentious proposals in the economic statement that have since been withdrawn due to the unexpected firestorm. One was the removal of the right to strike by public service employees and the other was the repeal of of public funding to political parties.

The actions triggered by the fuse can be read about here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 09:10 PM

It's about the rip-roarin', hell-for-leather, shoot-'em-up politics of Canada, our neighboUr to the North, where the PM has recently gone so far as NOT to raise the pinky when sipping tea. This threw the entire country into a Constitutional Crisis of major proportions, and the Sociable Democrats have taken the Liberal Conservatives to task over the matter.

Stand by for more fast-paced action in the coming days, if the snow doesn't fall first.















(All said with a big grin. I LIKE Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 08:40 PM

Peter T., I think that when you wrote that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper...has dished himself" you meant "dissed" as in caused some political harm to himself {dissed-slang for disrespected; insulted].

If so, {or even if my sense of what you wrote is incorrect}, would you or anyone else reading this thread please post some information or links to articles that provide a summary of what this thread is about.

Thanks,

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:41 PM

The Cons are sounding desperate, it'll be interesting to see their next move.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bankley
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:32 PM

How about Franglais ?

Mr. Duceppe holds the balance of power. Harper shot himself in his last good foot.... the other one was blasted when he cut arts programs before the election and then tanked in Quebec...
now this, and spying on NDP caucus meetings as well, then releasing the recording.... not too swift...

good on him, imagine if he had a majority !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:07 PM

Peter..... we are buddies ....... I am begging you ........ stand for PM. We need a Buddhist up there, especially one who can speak Parisienne (sp?) as well as Quebecois (sp?, correct use of term?).

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:04 PM

Harper will soon meet his demise. One way or another.

The world is changing, and it can't accomodate the likes of him.

biLL

Subject: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM

No, not a contradiction in terms! The right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he of the tin ear and the arrogance, has dished himself (couldn't happen to a nicer person). The Liberals and NDP (if they don't kill each other) are poised to take over the government in Parliament. And the Prime Minister may be Stephane Dion (tortoise vs. hare) who has basically resigned! And the pivot person?   The Governer General herself!!!

We are in a constitutional crisis -- what fun!!

yours,

Peter T.