theWatcher

Here is my propblem with what the government has proposed: By decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana they are in effect telling Canadians it is ok to smoke it. This will increase demand and consumption will rise. The only real way to get it is to buy it from a dealer, and dealing it is still illegal. So in effect the goernment is giving more money to the drug dealers. More untaxed unGSTeed money. Even dealers can use the new proposal to their advantage, they just can't carry very much of it at any single time. Take a pound split it up between 50 people and they can walk freely down the street without fear of incarceration. So if they are not going to prosecute you for smoking it, why the heck can't you grow it? I am predicting consumption rates as high as 10 times the current rate and all of that dope has to come from somewhere and make someone a profit, a tax free profit none the less. Think the streets are not violent now? Wait till drug operations have doubled or tripled, and see what happens then. Pot should either be legal or illegal. If it is legal then regulate it and tax it, just like tobacco. This would eliminate or at least severely reduce the criminal element.

In regards to Stockwell Day. I supported him on his leadership bid and I admire the man greatly. But he has had his chance and I don't see how things could work out any different a second time around. The liberals woould skewer him. The red tories would leave en mass if he regained power. And the general population would consider it a step back and not a step forward. He is still young, there is time for him to try again later. He is learning so much and he performs better as a senior cabinet member where the pressure is less for him. I think he would only server to bleed votes from Harper and cause other candidates to win. Plus I think he wouldn't run anyhow out of respect for Harper.

Hmmmmm, wanna bet?

Usually you give the party leader at least one election before you sack them. This would be the unique event of sacking TWO leaders before they faced an election. I am not so sure that Mr Harris is the answer. Didn't he quit on Ontario half way through a mandate? Don't a lot of people in Ontario despise him? Does he leave any baggage behind that could haunt him later ( court cases, scandals, etc) ... My potential list is very short. Stephen Harper Lewis MacKenzie Peter Mackay Bernard Lord

Any sort of merger will be very difficult if not impossible to negotiate. Currently the Alliance has about four times the members of the PCPC, as reported by Mike Duffy at CTV. The Alliance has four times the MP's of the PCPC. About half of the PCPC caucus would quit if a merger was formed. The PCPC are also split between their red faction and blue faction. I assume most of those leaving would be from the red faction. How do you make an agreement between two parties that are so different in size? The PCPC have at most a week or two left to decide what it is they really want. They still think (wrongly in my opinion) that they are the natural ruling alternative to the Liberals and if they hang on long enough eventually everyone will come back to them and they will regain power. They are resentfull of the Alliance for upsetting the traditional Flip/Flop of the electorate between the Liberals and Tories. Before the Alliance at least theyed get 4 or 8 years between the grits 20 or 30. I also think they are deeply divided as a party with at least 4 separate blocks that would be hard to convince to merge. Twenty five percent of the party is made up of Orchardites whose main goal is to kill the Free trade agreement. This guy hasn't stopped campaigning and is still signing up members. One more leadership convention and he's got it wrapped up, probably in the first ballot. The other leadership contender disliked Mackay enough not to forge an alliance with him and their beliefs are all over the map. Are the Tories for or against Same Sex Marriage? Or Legalizing pot? Why are they for the slush fund of 100,000 dollars per MP, to hand out as they see fit? How is that fiscal conservatism? ----------------------------- Now look at it from Harpers perspective. He will probably be the official opposition after the next election. He might have a few more seats, or a few less. He has to forecast the number of seats the PC's will get. If he believes the PC's will drop, or remain about the same then he loses out if he gives away everything to make a merger. What does a merger give the Alliance? Possibly 20 seats that they lost in close races with the Liberals. Would the Maritimes vote for a merged party, or move to the Liberals? Who knows. The PC's popular percentage has been dropping in every election since Mulroney. Even Joe Clark couldn;t keep it from dropping. And Mackay is no Joe Clark. Frankly, I don't see any big gains coming from him during the next debates or during an election campaign. So I think that the PC tactic of trying to hang on until the Alliance goes away might have backfired on them and will result in their own implosion given 2 or 3 more years. As their membership drops, and Orchards increases it is inevitable they he will be running the party and once that happens the right will be united. Under the Alliance. That is unless I am totally wrong and the voters are just waiting to flock back to the PC's so they can boot out the Liberals the next election or the one after. And thats what the PC's have to decide, and yes it is a difficult decision.

Recent Tory Quote: So did the Tories say no....... Or didn't they?

Want to hear a sick bloody joke? Here is the dictionary definition for the "Emissary" word that has been floating around: Now think about who has been throwing that term around everywhere. Coupled with the fact that Mackay signed a non merger deal with Orchard. So if he was persueing a merger he was reneging on the Orchard deal. And if he had no intention of making a merger deal (thus keeping his deal with Orchard) he was not bargaining in good faith. Which one was it?

I agree with the earlier posters. The PC's would have kept coming to the meetings for the next millenium. They know how to play the game. In three months they did not make a single proposal. They did not bring forth a single point. They could not agree on even the minutes of the meetings. Peter set an deadline of Labour day after Harper told him he reserved the entire months of July and August for the meetings. The PC's never bothered to start until what, the 21, or 26th? They never countered to any of the proposals. Maybe harper should have kept his people going to. But he is not one to play games. There was quite a bit of hysteria going along and it wouldn't have been good to let it build up too much as well. Harper made the proposal he outlined a plan, all I heard from Mackay was Whining and insults. Did anyone seriously think Peter was actually going to allow it to happen? Who coined the term emissaries anyhow?

One way to test the theory would be to elect an Alliance government...

Harper's 14-points to unite the right. New party will be known as the "Conservative Party." Conservative Party will assume rights, assets and liabilities of the Alliance and Tories. Harper and MacKay must achieve support of their parties by Oct. 10 "through whatever mechanism necessary." CA and PC will name 11 members to an interim governing body, consisting of equal representation from each province. The interim governing body will be responsible for Elections Canada filings, drafting a constitution by Dec. 31, establishing riding associations and overseeing nominations. The party will establish a trust capable of raising money and retiring PC Party debt. CA and PC caucuses of both houses will become the Conservative Party caucuses. Caucus will elect an interim leader immediately and draft a statement of principles by Dec. 31. The interim leader will be the leader of the Opposition, but may not be a candidate in the leadership race. CA and PC will name two individuals to a leadership election organizing committee. Leadership vote will be conducted by mail-in ballot on the basis of one-member, one-vote. Membership cut-off will be Nov. 17. The founding convention of the Conservative Party will be held in Ottawa Feb. 19-21. The convention will amend and adopt a constitution and a statement of principles and policies. Where possible, the selection of CA and PC candidates will be grandfathered to the Conservative Party, and further CA and PC nominations meetings shall immediately cease.

I'm from Alberta and even I wouldn't vote for Ralph federally. Frankly he's an embarrassment. He shows up drunk and makes stupid statements even after claiming to have quit drinking. Remember his “Shoot shovel something” comment to the Americans two weeks ago? Or when he threw coins at the homeless people and told them to go get jobs. His commitment to fiscal responsibility ended long ago and he is spending money as fast as possible these days. But on the positive side he would have a good campaign slogan: “Ralf for a better Canada”

Wouldn't a real merger between all of the provinces in the maritimes save money? Rather than duplicating services for each province consolidate everything together. One legislature, one election, one set of services, and a lot more clout as a larger entity....

It seems to me that the Alliance is trying to merge while the Tories are having a meeting to see if it would be feasible to have a meeting to see if they should merge. The Tory strategy for the last 10 years has been to try to hang on until the Reform/Alliance party collapses and I don't see that changing anytime soon. If there is no merger the Alliance will still get about 50 seats, theres no way the NDP will come out ahead of them. Where's Jack going to get 35 more seats from?

Copps is in the race for only one reason and that is to try to keep her job in the Liberal party. She doesn't want to be swept out with the rest of the old guard when Mr. Martin cleans house and hopes that by maintaining some illusion that it is a race she can gain browny points with the new PM. So she has no reason to quit now and she will stay right until the final ballots are counted. I think she will be rewarded with a plum patronage appointment by Martin very soon after he takes over and her cabinet minister days are over.

What more do you need? Sounds good to me. I agree with the first part of that statement. The PC will never form another government alone, sorry. But then the CA won't either. I agree with this statement strongly. I am torn with the idea of a merger. I feel that if things remain the same, all parties will lose seats to the Liberals next election. But the CA have a bigger base in the West and will lose less than the others and still remain the opposition. A merger would be uneccesary because after the election when Mackay gets dumped, Orchard will probably take over and drive most of the blue tories to the CA anyways. So a merger now would reduce/eliminate the Orchard factor, probably driving him to a new fringe party. But I think the PC's will ultimately reject a merger if it is brought to a vote. Too many of them still think they are the natural party to govern. But there power base is in the maritimes, I don't see any room for them to grow in the west or Quebec, they might get a few seats in Ontario.... So I think that the lack of a merger will affect the PC's more, and the fact that they haven't quickly come out and said no means that they have some private numbers that show they are in trouble for the next election. This can be done as a win/win scenario though. A merged party stands a very good chance of winning the next election. Especially if they can find some way to get some votes in Quebec. If I was a PC supporter I'd be asking myself if I wanted to be a member of a merged party in power or at the very least in opposition, or be fighting it out for 4th place again.

That was a classic example of why you should never believe opinion polls. The country wanted the PC's out very badly. The strong PC supporters stayed at home, and the fence sitters all came out and bounced her. Mulroney knew his goose was cooked. He cut and ran at the perfect time. I still wonder about the big media buildup for Campbell, where did that come from?

The list looks to normal after seeing all the kooks in California that are running. I've been thinking that if I am going to have to listen to someone lie to me for the next 4 or 8 years they should be funny at least so they could be entertaining. Not sure if any of these are right wingers or not. How about: Dan Akroyd William Shatner or some rock stars, that would help to get the youth vote out. Gord Downie Bruce Cockburn or Comedians, least we can laugh while getting shafted Rick Mercer Any of the SCTVers Don Cherry Thomas Chong Howie Mandel Rich Little Kids in the Hall guys Norm Mcdonald Mike Mcdonald Lets not discount the sexist vote, someone who would be nice to look at while we get shafted Catherine Clark Kim Catrall Carole Laure Shannon Tweed

The reason why the Liberals would fear a united conservative party is that it makes it extremely easy to boot them out of office. There was a 61% turnout in the last election. An awefull lot of people just stayed at home because they felt that the Liberals would win no matter what. Then the people that actually bothered to go out and vote end up splitting their votes between two parties and the Liberals come up the middle and win. It's a lot easier to sweep the trash out when you have a single united alternative.

Five years ago these same politicans were telling us to read their lips and that gays would never be permitted marriage. Now we have it. How can you believe anything they say? I believe that the bible will eventually be banned, but it won't be the politicians who do it, it will be the courts who decide that one. And all the politicans will shrug and say its not their fault. Think about it, 3 unelected officals (Supreme court judges) ultimately decide what our laws will be. The Liberals purposely left out sexual orientation from the charter of rights, they have stated this many many times. And the judges read it in. Svend has out smarted everyone on this issue. Three strikes, gay marriage, bill C250, and then the challenge. The battle will have started when the first gay couple sues a church after being refused marriage. How many days from now is that going to happen?

I understand why Mackay is sceptical. There are about 75,000 PC members currently and about 120,000 CA. It would be difficult to keep things balanced for a leadership contest. A very solid third alternative that would be a viable choice for both parties needs to be found. Sadly, I don't think any such person exists right now.

If all the fish in that area are dead and the fishing industry is wiped out...... Why not turn it into a landfill site for the country? We could double the size of the island in less than 5 years. Or take over the little islands that France owns in that area and it could be a collection of islands. At least it owuld have a large surface area.

A merger is good for many reasons, everyone knows that. My biggest fear is that the new party would get pulled too close to the center which tends to set policy by reading the polls. I still think its not likely to happen, as much as I'd like to see it. I don't think a Mackay Harper leadership contest would be much of a battle for Harper. Perhaps a heavier hitter could be enticed to run. I am not sure one exists though. But I know one thing. It would strike fear in the hearts of the Liberals.

The latest same sex marriage polls are putting it at a (52 against) (42 for) split. What political choice does the 52 against have? What political choice(s) does the 42 for split have? The PC's position (this week) is that they want to eliminate marriage from the government and let the churches worry about it themselves. Peter is allowing an open vote, but is making it his mandate to convince the other 14 MP's to move to his position. Are you happy with that? You think Canadians will be beating a path to your door with that strategy? Or is the REAL PC strategy just fence sitting, and hoping the Alliance falls on its face? Do nothing and hope the other guys get labelled as wackos. In my opinion, thats a dangerous move, and will leave the PC's sitting about the same as before. They will lose a little of the Against vote, and pick up a little of the soft For vote. Time will tell.

My point Gugsy is that the PC's hate the Alliance more than the Liberals. That was just one quote proving it. Firewalls are a protection, which was recommended to protect Alberta from a predatory government in Ottawa. Its not meant as an attack on other provinces. The defeatist attiitude Stephen mentioned was more of an attack on the Liberals "buying" support in the maritimes, and a lot of people agree with him on that point. Heres an example What Stephen Harper got wrong – and right The chap who wrote that is the president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a public policy think tank in Halifax Alliance comments tend to be about practices and procedures, and the PC's are usually very personal with a lot of name calling, another tactic favoured by the Liberals. When you can't refute the message you're forced to attack the messenger. Besides, if we follow your logic, a merger is irrelevant anyways. According to you Alliance support is only at 9%. Since their power base is bigger in the west, that makes it signifigantly lower in the East. What do you need a piddly amount like that for? Your party is 30 points behind the liberals and thats just a drop in the bucket.

What about the fact that there is a difference between "Equal rights" and the "Same Rights". Let's use men and women for example. They have "equal rights" to each other, but that is not the same as "same rights". If I, as a male wish to use a public washroom, i use the Males lavatory. I could try to use the argument that I wished to be treated the same as women and use theirs. But I cannot. Therefore my rights are not the same. But I am free to use the male’s washroom which means that I have an equivalent set of rights that are equal to women’s rights. Change rooms work the same way. What about the Olympics? I would stand a better chance of winning a medal if I entered the woman’s Olympics, why are you depriving me of my right to competing for a medal? Gays can be treated as equals by giving them a union that has all of the same rights as marriage does for hetero's, it should just be called something else. Why call it something else? Because it is different, in most respects it is different. Hundreds of laws would have to be changed to support it, for instance look at child custody. Typically in Canada, when a couple divorces, the custody of the child goes to the woman, and the man makes support payments. I am not saying that is fair, that’s just the way it is. The man pays a portion of his salary as determined by a table in a legal document (after paying taxes on it) and the woman gets the money to use to help support the child (without paying taxes on it). How will this work in a same sex marriage? If they adopt the child, or one of the women gets pregnant how is custody going to be determined and how will support payments be calculated? Pension payments are based an actuary tables that take into account that women live longer than men, and payments are adjusted accordingly. This will now have to work differently when both people are of the same sex. Insurance will have to be adjusted as well. EI benefits for couples having children, how is this going to work? There are different lengths of time that mothers can take as compared to fathers. Will two women who marry and have a child both be eligible for mother’s rights, even if only one is pregnant? When a same sex couple gets a child, what last name is the child going to use? What about incest laws? They were created to prevent two headed babies created from diluting the gene pool, and since 2 brothers or sisters cannot make a child should they still be prevented from getting married? Or father/son, mother/daughter? What about the titles “mother” and “father”? Every same sex marriage is missing one of them. So it could be argued that mother’s day and father’s day is discriminatory and should be banned. We can’t have little jimmy making mothers day cards in school now because he has two dads and no mother, and that would traumatize him. Teachers are banned from using the M word and F word. Little jimmy gets hurt, the teacher asks “Is your parental unit at home? or should I phone them at work?” It’s going to sound like an episode of the Coneheads. Two gay guys get married, adopt a child, divorce and each of them remarry. So the poor kid has a dad, and another dad, his dad’s step dad, and his other dad’s step dad. Wonder who he’s going to spend father’s day with. Our laws end up getting way more complicated because any relating to marriage will have to have an asterisk next to each one showing the permutations of what is going to happen with the different permutations of possibilities. It should keep a lot of lawyers employed trying to sort it all out.