tml12

I don't think Bakunin is particularly difficult to understand. If you live in Quebec, you meet francophones all the time who sometimes have a little trouble with English, but I help them out. We all struggle and we're all human...I make mistakes with French grammar too.

Montreal GazetteLauzon is running in Outremont against Lapierre and the BQ's Jacques Leonard, a PQ cabinet minister. This is one of the more interesting races and I must admit, Layton deserves credit for getting Lauzon to run. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If Outremont were my Montreal riding, which it is not, I would vote Liberal. I would never vote NDP, most likely not BQ, and I do not know who the Conservative candidate is. Lapierre is not the greatest man on Earth, but I have met him a few times and he seems decent...he also has a good sense of humour and is open to frank discussion.

We don't have one tier now, there has always been two-tier medicine in Canada. We have private gov't funded abortion clinics, Shouldice surgery in the GTA (Ontario) has been operating very successfully for years, to mention some. I sure don't want U.S. style HMO medicare, which is the usual bogeyman trotted out by the naysaers, but I believe we should have a choice, we should be able to spend our money anyway we see fit. I read somewhere recently that a group in Ontario are putting together a similar challenge to the SC, as was done in Quebec. Personally I won't be buying private insurance, but would sure like the option of buying an MRI scan for instance if I needed one in a hurry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. I guess my question is, will our politicians officially be denying this in 5-6 years.

How about this: This MagazineThis one, given the date, I find intriguing: Transport Canada (To refresh your memory, Martin resigned from cabinet in June 2002. The discharge occurred in March 2002.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knowing the relationship between Martin and Chretien, one cannot be truly surprised that Martin would want to get out early. I am not sure this is the fault of an event at CSL>

I would be happy to see the GPC get 1,000,000 votes, however I think your biggest enemy right now is the NDP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nor does it make much sense.

I believe each party needs to lay out three areas where, if they focus on these areas, they will make several gains in the election: BLOC QUEBECOIS: The Bloc's three areas of focus need to be: 1) Emphasizing Quebec, 2) Emphasizing That The Liberals Are Corrupt, 3) Emphasizing that the Conservatives, without seats in Quebec, will not care about this province. The Bloc need not worry about much in their election. NDP: The NDP needs to focus on: 1) The Youth/University Vote, 2) Anti-Bush and Comparing Both the Liberals and Conservatives As Being Pro-Bush, 3) Emphasizing Popular Left-Wing Ideas. The NDP has the opportunity to make serious gains in this election by stealing votes from soft Liberals who feel disaffected by the Party. The NDP can campaign on socialist health care (which they know they will never have to worry about saving) and the fact that they dragged $4.6 billion out of the Liberals. CONSERVATIVES: Harper needs to emphasize: 1) Small, clean, efficient government, 2) The Democratic Deficit, 3) The Future Under A Conservative Government. The Conservatives will win this election if they come across as viable, strong, vibrant, and ready to efficiently govern. Harper needs to come across as appealing and ready to go. By talking about the scandal and emphasizing the tired and aimless Liberal government, the Conservatives can probably encourage enough voters to get out and vote for them. Hard campaigning in Quebec, especially in the Montreal West and Hull area could give them a seat or two or at least position their candidates for the next election. This will be especially important since our next government will probably be a minority. LIBERALS: The Liberals needs need to focus on: 1) Strong Economy, 2) Canadian Sovereignty, 3) Separation Between Martin and Chretien. Martin is a brilliant economist. By campaigning on his strong fiscal record, Canadian sovereignty from the U.S. (although I am sure a Martin majority, without pressure from the NDP, would strengthen ties with the U.S.), and separating Martin from the corrupt and dictatorial Chretien years. Martin needs to seem awake, alive, excited, and ready to get back to governing. The Liberals need to shy away from emphasizing Quebec sovereignty so much and start focusing on the positives of a Quebec in Canada partnership. Martin should also not shy away from positive campaigning in Alberta and the Prairies. It probably won't help, but it won't hurt. ALL major parties, except the Bloc, need to campaign and focus lots of money in BC. If this election were to produce even the slightest majority, it will be because of BC.

Overall pretty good but I think your BC numbers are off.

You're right Burns.

I am sure FNC is not dissing Bush.

Which could play to her advantage and the advantage of the CPC, a silent backbencher is a CPC wet dream. Generally speaking when a backbencher gets noticted it tends to be for all the wrong reasons. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You both tend to be right...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well Harper knew Grewal had to go.

You didn't factor the undecided number in there but generally you are not incorrect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> For sure, I am not faulting Harper here I am only saying that he needs to talk to us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> i kind of get the general consesus out of everyone on this board that the NDP is bad news? I do my best to keep up on the parties but canadian politics are hard to follow at best. (As an American i get little news). If i may so humbly ask, how does the NPD Cons and Liberals measure up to what we have here in the USA? (ex, is what you call conservative there the same thing as here?) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Conservative Party, as we have it today, is a little bit to the left of the Republican Party in the U.S. and the Democratic Party is a bit to the right of the Liberal Party (if this makes sense). There really is no NDP equivalent that I can think of in U.S. federal politics. However, things also vary a bit depending on the part of the country you're in. I lived in New York City for awhile and, although the mayor (Giuliani) and the governor (Pataki) were Republicans, they were socially moderate (pro-choice, etc.) and economically moderate (social welfare, etc.). They would be seen, I would guess, as left of the mainstream Democratic Party be some Texas conservatives. Check out the "Canada 2005" and "U.S. 2004" election links on politicalcompass.org, as I believe they do a good comparison job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know I am with you Shoop but if an election were held today I just don't see Harper forming a government...certainly I see the Liberals losing some and the Conservatives gaining some but voters will not give Harper any kind of government just because the current government is uninspiring or the scandal. Canadians want to see where Harper would take this country.

After the spring Supreme Court ruling I thought we would have to wait for 12 months in Quebec to be able to buy private health insurance. Not so...today in the mail I got a pamphlet from a private insurer telling me exactly how to buy it...and I may just do so. Does anyone really think we will have one tier health care in five or six years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cool and Harper did handle that quietly (I'll have to look at the papers tomorrow).

Missile Defence (which Canada is deeply involved with, despite the "official" position to the contrary) is a perfect example of a militarily useless and financially wasteful project that has led Canada's armed force sto such a sorry state. The onluy poissible winners are the aerospace companies and other military contracters whose bottom lines are subsidized by such a white elephant. It's the 21st Centiry equivalent of the Ross rifle. From who? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BD, The official position was only at the request of the NDP. Because Canadian soil and Canadian cities and Canadian citizens are involved, Canada has to participate to a degree. Missile defence as Bush's government proposes is an inherently flawed program. My military contacts tell me that anyone with an undergraduate physics degree can find flaws in it. Yet, in principle Canada must be involved. Doing otherwise would constitute a loss of sovereignty. Who does the U.S. defend us from? Anyone who might want to screw with us, including al-Qaeda. When you live next to the world's only superpower, they have at least some control over your foreign policy. Even Trudeau realized that.

Did he take Nina with him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Possibly and yes NDP seats would probably mean Liberal losses... As someone in their early 20s who is an undergrad student, I don't think I really ever want to be in this financial situation EVER again!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the election will produce gains for the Liberals in BC, losses for the Liberals in Ontario and a maintaining of Conservative fortunes in Alberta and Liberal fortunes in the Maritimes. The Bloc will take around 55-60 seats in Quebec and the NDP may pick up a few in BC and the Prairies. Barring a major shift in public opinion (as I said before, this is Harper's election to win), we will see: Liberal Party 127 seats Conservative Party 103 seats Bloc Quebecois 58 seats New Democratic Party 20 seats Unfortunately for Martin (whom I really don't dislike...I am actually starting to dislike Chretien even more because I think he screwed Martin) no one wants to give the Liberals a majority government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the NDP picks up any more seats it would be simply awful. When Martin picked up after that screwball Chretien he and Defence Minister Bill Graham said Canada would join missile defence and help out in Iraq...yet Martin was bribed by the commie NDP to deny Canada the basic right to defend itself. With all due respect I don't know how anyone who isn't on a university campus would vote for the NDP (I should know...I meet a lot of university student everyday...)

Best Case Scenario: Martin or Harper minority. Worst Case Scenario: The NDP picks up any more seats OR Liberal/Conservative majority.

Built by a Republican government no less. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A National Defense priority under Eisenhower. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are right. Anyone who has driven on a U.S. interstate will notice the blue sign with the stars that says "Eisenhower (sp?) Interstate System." And I do believe it was a U.S. national defense priority.