BS: Wild Canadian Politics

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.