jdobbin

We already see conservatives here blaming the priest.

I agree that the party controls are important. Too few controls and your party can be hijacked. Some feel that is what happened to the PCs in Alberta. Too many controls and you won't have your base come out and actually run your campaign and elect your people. I have no problems with an appointments commission determining suitable candidates. I agree that the appointment has to come from the prime minister. Nor do I think that provinces should have the final say of who should be senators. I have no problems having a list of potential candidates though. Every party runs that way now. We'll have to see how Ignatieff does in trying to get a grass roots organization in place. It is essential in bringing new and competent people into the party and into leadership positions. I can't think of who some of the future contenders of the Tories will be. So many of them don't speak French and those that do don't have a huge presence on the national front. It is why Blaikie left. That, and the fact that he didn't speak French. At least in Manitoba as a MLA he will probably be a cabinet minister in the next weeks. Ignatieff should be grateful for Rae. If the two demonstrate loyalty to one another, they can both be stronger for it. There are still some strong contenders in the party but depth is thin. Concentrating too much power in the leader's hands could hurt those efforts to expand the party.

If this is true, why doesn't Harper say that the priest didn't give him proper instruction? In the absence of knowing who is telling the truth, people are looking at the video on Youtube. If it had been a TV show, it would have ranked in the top 10 programs in Canada

There are no impartial choices. There can be no real peace unless violence is renounced and not merely in hiatus. The departure of settlers and return of prisoners from Gaza triggered renewed violence. It is an ongoing escalation. The focus on the West Bank was delayed since it was felt that some Palestinians would simply continue the attack into pre-1967 borders of Israel and that leaving the area would not bring new security. The stated goal of Hamas to push Israel into the sea and take back all the land can't be ignored. Obama is now trying to get the process back on track by getting both sides to talk about two states and start returning land for an enduring security deal. Obama is also trying to achieve a wider security and peace deal. The situation with Syria seems to represent an opportunity and could represent a chance to remove 18,000 settlers. It is only now that two of the most entrenched and unchangeable leaders in Israel and Palestine have talked about two states. The intransigence comes from the belief that violence will achieve one's aims or that settlements will be better for security for Israel. What Israel learns is that settlements don't provide better security and Palestinians are learning that violence doesn't stop settlements. There is no impartial position to take except to get the parties to recognize this. Unilateral sanctions against Israel or Palestine are not influential in the least.

The Star and Hill Times have been having an interesting discussion on the powers of the prime minister. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...luence/&c=2 For brevity the list is as follows: 1 Appointments 2 Setting the agenda for the government 3 Control over election machinery 4 Control over the organization of the federal government 5 Other tools (as explained in the link) You may agree or disagree with the solutions offered. I certainly don't agree with all of them but they are interesting.

Yes success. The only process this far that has ended in peace agreements between Jordan, Israel and Egypt. The only process that removed settlers from a geographic area. The only process to get both sides talking about a two state solution.

The EKOS pollster says the most danger seems to be with the NDP. http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/upl...rt-_july-9_.pdf Ontario goes back and forth between Liberals and Tories. The Bloc remains strong although the large sample Leger and CROP polls showed the Liberals have come up quite a bit. The Tories face problems if they can't get their numbers up there. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-different.aspx Here is the seat call based on the polls: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

Harper supports cap and trade, he did support the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

You're right. And what we saw was that you have no evidence your way will do anything.

I think those were all on your part. I can't think of anyone who believes your way of doing thing is the way to go. Nor can I find any in the world. I haven't seen any examples at all. I know you get angry and upset by it and your tendency to lash out seems motivated by the fact that you are not held to account by revealing publicly who you are. I have a hard time thinking you are serious.

Apparently 500,000 or more people who viewed Youtube. As I said, I suspect Tory numbers to go up through the summer and a possible snap election prior to the House sitting in the fall.

Yes, in a speech to the other liberals about the meaning of Liberals. He wasn't at an international event representing Canada and electioneering on the podium by calling out the Opposition. Harper seems to stand alone in that. I can't recall too many prime ministers doing that, can you? At a partisan event, yes. ---- Who's wounded ego? I don't know that Ignatieff made a big deal of not getting attention of the British media. He certainly doesn't look like he courts the media internationally like Harper does (or at least the FOX network). The British seem quite insular. What else could explain the national sensation of British Big Brother?

Except on photo shoots and how is staff gets information. And the deficit. But other than that, on the right track.

Lack of interest would at least show that a decision had been made to make politics a low priority. What I found in a lot of people was blissful unwareness which didn't feel like apathy. I've always believed apathy was awareness of something but a decison on the part of a person not to be concerned for, care about, show interest in or get emotional about it.

How? You're anonymous. I don't know any way of determing apathetic voters from ones making a statement unless they go public.

And I think it is totally pertinent to the topic as I find it hard to believe that you are serious. As for the facts, I think we can safely say that your way of doing things has no credibility at all. It is hard to believe that anything you say here is anything but mischief by someone who feels they can get away with it because no one knows who they are.

It does. Because I don't think you're serious on this forum. It is hard to believe you really believe what you say or would act the way you do if you actually had to put a name to the opinion.

I think it is very directly on the subject. I believe your anonymous nature is the driving force for the way you act. I just can't see how it has any influence at all on Israel or on voting in general.

You have that right. How is anyone to determine if the people not voting is a movement for an improved system? Some of the people I have spoken to who don't vote are just not interested. I can't even describe their feelings as apathetic. It would be hard for anyone to describe the largest group of non-voters as a movement for change. Nor is the non-voter situation going to drive the political parties to change the system just to get people to vote when there is no evidence that this is what they want in the first place.

And this change comes from you not voting? Why would the present parties change when they have no idea why people don't vote? And why would the main parties or any party consider those that don't vote a cohesive political movement for changing to PR? How will it increase voter turn-out where we see countries with some form of PR having similar voter turn-outs?

Your anonymous nature is not likely to have any influence on the present situation. Put a name to your political convictions instead of hiding. Not voting and disengaging and choosing to be anonymous don't sound very politically influential.

Avoided the observation altogether that you only say what you are saying because you can do it anonymously. I can't imagine that any party or political leader in Canada is willing to follow your course of action. They certainly won't do it if you don't participate in voting since how would they even know your view existed or had real support?

I am all ears about what the perfect system would be and how to achieve that end in Canada. Getting a higher voter turn-out is not easy for any system. The polls in most industrial countries indicate at least 20% of eligible voters not voting consistently. In a lot of countries that number is getting up there to 30 to 35%. Not voting never changes a system. Or at least I have never seen it change a system. Heck, in civic politics where in some cities there are no parties, voter turn-out is dismally low. Even with multiple candidates, there is little interest.

Not voting at all isn't going to change that make-up within the system. Lower voter turn-out can happen in even the systems that allow for multiple parties. In those systems, 20% to 30% of the population still won't vote.

I have yet to see logical arguments from you. You are using the same mindset in Canadian voting that you want to apply to world-wide. Somehow you think not voting is a powerful statement. It isn't. Can you point to me where not voting has made a difference? Disengaging is simply disengaging.