Ricki Bobbi

Hmmm, from the Forum Rules and Guidelines. Calling Harper isn't a wimp? Or is this a board where calling someone a wimp (or whiner for that matter) isn't an insult? Good attempt at diverting the issue though. How many days would I have to belong before I can point out the obvious?

There was some woman from the Candian HIV-AIDS Legal Network on CTV tonight. She actually said she was surprised there were so *few* delegates who claimed refugee status. WTF!!!

That's why it will take more than one elected Senator to get the ball rolling. Unfortunately Stan Waters passed away before he had the chance to really get settled into the role of a Senator. So we will have to see what happens if we get a number of elected Senators who get the chance to serve for more than a few months. It won't be an easy transition, but there will be steps in the right direction. I don't see any of your complaints or objections being a better system then a gradual move to a fully elected Senate. Alberta is committed to electing Senators. If PEI joins the fray then another province or two would represent a crtical mass to electing Senators cross-country. A constitutional amendment for electing senators would not require unanimous approval of the provinces. 7/50 would apply.

Uhhh, but once Senators are elected they will have the legitimacy to exercise their power. Thus they will be able to serve as a check on the house of commons.

Here's a brief rundown of the history of why the U.S. started to elect senators. The movement to elect Senators began in the 1820s, but didn't gain much steam for quite a few years. Most U.S. states have an upper and a lower house. Around the time of the Civil War (late 1860s) there started to be a lot of issues with deadlocks between the houses in given states which lead to some Senate seats going unfilled for a number of years. Oregon became the first state to elect a Senator in 1906. It caught on and by 1912 a total of 29 states had elected at least one Senator. In 1913 the 17th amendment to the Constitution required that all states elect their Senators, which began in 1914. Yeah, it is. The Senate has the constitional power to act as a balance on the House of Commons, it just doesn't have the legitimacy.

Don't quite see how it would *take balls* to cave in to what the majority of Liberal premiers want rather than attempting to implement a change that his party actually believes in and provides a balance to the excesses of a majority government. Don't know if the legislatures *electing* Senators would make for much of a change. Hacks are hacks. A bicameral legislature can be useful as a check on "tyranny of the majority". It should, in some sense, be elected, but elected in a different manner from the lower house so that it doesn't wind up as purely a rubber stamp. In the US, State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Perhaps that would not be a bad approach.

Those are pretty much the same numbers as in the SES Research poll. Conservatives hovering around 25% in Quebec .... Not very good. But both polls were taken right after the most recent mid-East war so the CPC *might* rebound. All kinda irrelevant as I don't think they were ever planning to force a second election in 2006.

I don't quite know what the deal is with gerryhatrick. Seems to be the only poster on the board who can break the rules with impunity. Oh well, such is life.... How do you guys know enough about Robert Borden to actually debate his time as PM? Man, I thought I was a little *too* into politics ...

What are you talking about, and what does the longth of Harper's response got to do with anything? The CBC story made it look like he was directly responding to Elsaadi Daad. Had his quote actually been a direct response to her statement it would have been a very cold-hearted answer indeed. However, that isn't what he was responding to. So the Prime Minister was shown in an unfavourable light. There truly was a *context shift* (wtf?) in the CBC story.

There are a lot of us out there who fit the *older* brand. But you'll never hear the Canadian left admit to that. It's not in their best interest. I'd have to agree with geoffrey. The CPC needs to dump a lot of the socon stuff. Once SSM has been dealt with what will the Liberals use to call scary, scary, scary about?

Where a you getting the 02Q2 figures from? A combination of PC and Alliance support at the time? Granted the sample size in the maritimes is quite low. But to fairly draw the analogy you would have to say the Conservatives are equally as likely to sweep the maritimes as the NDP are to be leading there. (Remember the margin of error cuts both ways.) If the field on the left is becoming more and more crowded there is no real need to radically shift course. The poll puts the CPC at 36% nationally. The Liberals eeked out a majority in 1997 with a little under 38.5% of the national vote. The Liberals barely cracked 40% in 2000 running against freakin' Stockwell Day and a still divided right. The Conservatives are not in a bad position at all right now. The fall session will be critical to their winning a majority. The ball still appears to be in Harper's court.

Good work geoffrey. Illustrated the point perfectly. What are the odds Figleaf will actually respond? As likely as the CBC airing a falsely *positive* editing of a Harper quote I would say.

The Conservatives are up slightly in both Ontario and Quebec but nohting much. No more than a total of a 10 seat swing in the best case scenario. Using this week's SES poll. There are some interesting thing happening in the Maritimes. The Conservatives lead the Liberals by 8% in the region. Considering the Liberals won the popular vote in all four provinces in January it has to make you wonder if things are going right for Harper et. al. Conservative support in Quebec may be *wavering* but it is still stronger than it was in January. If there were another election in 2006 the Conservatives would probably win a stronger minority as a best case scenario. Harper is on a mission for a majority government, thus no election this year.

Bobby Curtola, wow that's a name you don't hear very often. Man, you gotta be from Edmonton.

What Turner said is right. The Conservatives are not aiming to force an election in the fall, that's why IMHO there will not be one. I truly believe their preferred date is the spring. August 1991, I don't know if I get your point? Are you saying Harper will make a fool of himself if he doesn't force a fall election?

Yup, another good sign for the Conservatives. Seems like the Greens, Liberals and NDP will all be fighting over the left of centre vote? Gotta wonder if this might, minorly, effect the Liberal leadership race. Will they be more likely to pick somebody from the left side of the party as a result? Rae? About the story... All trade should be "carbon neutral"? What does that mean?

The Green Party is have a leadership - maybe someone should tell Orchard... It's a party that doesn't stand for anything in particular, other than self-serving egotism. It's perfect for Orchard!! Does anybody know a political message board that isn't sooooooo pro-Orchard as MLW?!

Fair enough, but benign neglect is a lot safer politically than actually getting rid of MotherCorp.

Definitely seems like the Conservatives are getting into campaign mode. I haven't really paid much attention to their Web site since the HofC broke for the summer. It seems to be a lot of attacks agains the opposition. Definitely a change from the stuff they were posting after the election. Appears more and more likely we'll be going to the polls *again* in the Spring.

I'm not sure what to say about this move. My first reaction is "What the f*ck is Dion thinking?" Then again, Orchard has a group of devoted followers. Dion will definitely end up with some delegates out of this deal. Is it worth it though?

Fair enough. It seems like the public is withholding judgment till the Conservatives have a little more time in office and/or the Liberals pick a new leader. The spring 2007 election might just be another Conservative minority at this rate... Although election fatigue has gotta set in at some point.

Baiting/trolling? By asking you a question? hmmm.... At the risk of trolling I will ask you a question. What is the relationship between Harper's statement made before the attack on the oil refinery and the enviornmental damage caused by the oil spill? That doesn't appear to be fair treatment. Seems kinda like the CBC when they made it look like Harper was responding to that woman's questions when he wasn't a few nights back. You see how unfair comparisons can leave people with the wrong idea. Like how some people might read your OP and think Harper's "fair and measured response" quote was connected to the attack on the refinery.

Are you honestly saying that you don't hate Stephen Harper?

That is *if* it happens. Still no guarantees on that. But it isn't unprecedented. A big part of the Reagan landslides in 80 and 84 was the support he got from the labour movement. I still don't think the Conservatives can claim large-scale Jewish support yet. But they are doing the right things to get there.

Sources for any of these? It's easy to spread innuendo like these without support. Can't really debate, what you have *heard* or *read* without hearing or reading it myself.