Wild Bill

That's quite a stretch of logic, MCC. I think it may be because you are so partisan in your thinking that you automatically twist anything about your political rivals to some joke or insult. That's the typical "digital" thinking of the young or inexperienced. As you learn more you realize that often people of very different political views can still be good people and that some who share your OWN views might even do some bad things once in a while. "Saints or sinners" is really rather simplistic...

I think you don't have an accurate idea of the typical Tory voter at all. You have a comic book caricature of what the typical conservative supporter is like! It's similar to some extreme rightwingers who think all NDP voters are communists. There are actually rather few social conservatives in the CPC. Even in the days of Reform, where I spent a lot of time, I only met one or two social conservatives. There are some pockets of them out west, mostly in BC but in nowhere near the numbers to control the party or represent some "hidden agenda". Most conservatives don't really care about changing abortion laws or legalizing gay marriage. Some may feel that some laws go so far as to give too much to some groups, making them "special". The usual belief is that all citizens are equal, which is why most conservatives don't support affirmative action. It's not that they are racist. They just think that reverse discrimination is still discrimination and therefore just as bad. The whole idea of conservatives being "scary, scary" is really wearing kinda thin! It's like a weak plot line from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". It's also a very bigoted view to hold, in that it is ascribing some evil taint to your political opponent that cannot be disproven because it is based on a "feeling" and not facts or evidence, just like prejudice towards some racial group. If your point is that now Harper has a majority he is going to make sacrificing your first born child mandatory to support some evil agenda I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment. It's just not going to happen! There will be little or no social engineering to some mythical conservative theme happening. Rather, it will be about the economy and reforming of parliament, like making parties get their own money instead of welfare taken from the taxpayers.

I haven't seen the tv episodes but I tried to read the books. I just couldn't get into them! I found them so convoluted and dark as to stifle my interest. Perhaps I should watch an episode to see if it grabs me better. This was an anomalous experience for me, someone who has been devouring SF and fantasy all his life and even more, has read and enjoyed many books by the author, George R Martin. Back in the 80's he wrote a book called "The Armageddon Rag" which I KNOW you would love, Kimmy! It's the story of a writer from the "Rolling Stone" magazine days of the 60's Viet Nam hippy dippy protester era who finds himself investigating the murder of a rock and roll developer who had been the agent for one of the most popular bands of that time. This leads him to a new promoter who is reviving the band, complete with a young "ringer" for the lead singer, who had been shot on stage at a big "Woodstock" style outdoor concert years before. The writer has a personal odyssey of re-discovering his own values, much of it through the music of the times. Throw in some magic, possibly satanic, where the "ringer" appears at times to be possessed on stage by the spirit of the original singer, exerting an unearthly effect on the audience and you have a story worthy of a Steven King! To me, as a George Martin fan this is THE book! As an old hippy myself all the references went straight to my heart. You being younger might miss a few but you would catch enough to give you a good insight into the spirit of those times, an insight which somehow never seems to be widely expressed in other books or media. I know that radio rarely plays much of the music of those times. Conspiracy, maybe? The music then was so wrapped up in politics - with the anti-war movement and what happened at Kent State and also the riots in Chicago at the political convention. If you are still enjoying playing "Smoke on the Water" you would enjoy this book!

Maybe so but myself, I could never vote for McGuinty and his gang ever again! What he did in Caledonia I found to be morally disgusting! I would vote for a pedophile before McGuinty! I know that sounds extreme but I mean it and anyone who has followed my posting here knows that I'm not known for that kind of hyperbole. I can't think of any better example of what could offend my libertarian/classic liberal roots than what happened at Caledonia. Since I'm also a survivor of Bob Rae's NDP term of running Ontario that leaves me with Hudak by default.

Well, I know that myself, I would be in favour of SELLING California as much "clean and crisp BC water" as BC feels it can safely spare! One would assume that BC would know far better than Ottawa or anyone else just how much fresh water it has in excess. The province itself should control its own resource, putting limits on how much the Americans could buy. Also, it goes without saying that the money should go to BC and NOT Ottawa!

Absolutely! The oil sands alone are estimated to last at least 300-400 years! However, all is not lost. I've been assured by some posters on this very board that all one has to do is to invest in oil and gas stocks. The dividends apparently will more than offset the increased price of gas at the pump. Now, I am a bit unclear about the amount of investment money I would need. It looks at first glance that I would need to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars into those stocks to make the reward worthwhile, considering the dividend returns. I don't have that kind of money, of course. It also seems rather harsh to have to make that kind of investment just to break even. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for another Maurice Strong to come along and revive the old PetroCan idea of a government company forcing all the others to lower their prices in order to compete! Didn't that work so well the last time, back in the late 70's and early 80's?

Am I the only one who is absolutely astonished that the NDP could win so many more seats than they ever had before without even the benefit of a PR system? We have heard it said so many times that our FPTP system bars the smaller parties from achieving a seat count proportional to their percentage of the national popular vote, yet look what has happened this last election! As for arguments about PR systems lacking strong regional or local riding representation, we've seen that the idea is irrelevant anyway. You don't have to live in riding, speak the local language or have even visited the place even once to still win there as a federal MP! I would think the case has been overwhelmingly proven that changes to our system are unnecessary.

Why? We already had a leftwing choice with Ed Broadbent and the NDP at the time. Clark would have been redundant.

You may find the old Reform Party process interesting, Pegasus. Local ridings were expected to have candidates nominated by local members. Any candidate had to belong to the party for at least a month and also any member to be allowed to vote. There was an interview process for any nominated candidate to make sure they suited the party style, understood the party platforms and philosophies, didn't have any skeletons in the closet and most important, they had to have their personal finances in order and be able to post a small bond with the party. The latter was to ensure candidates who weren't running just because they were desperate for a job to pay outstanding bills. A general meeting of the riding association would be called and a secret ballot held. Every member of the riding could vote. The winner became the party's candidate for the next election. Only in cases of extreme urgency would HQ interfere with the local process. If they REALLY wanted a star candidate that was not enough! That star candidate would still have to win a nomination election but of course if he or she was really that much of a star winning would be easy! Sometimes in some ridings where the chances of winning were poor it was hard to scrape up a candidate but as much effort as possible was always made to keep standards high and respect local riding choices. The effort was necessary because it was always a worry that someone with a hidden agenda would be trying to hijack the party's popularity for their own mission. Those people were always "turfed" as soon as they were discovered. Effort at the front end of the vetting process kept those actions to a minimum. I don't know if the NDP was or is equally democratic and populist but from what I witnessed many times here in Hamilton the Liberal party seemed to consider riding nominations to be a mere formality. Almost always people like Sheila Copps or Tony Valeri were protected against facing a nomination challenge. When their two ridings were merged they were forced to battle it out and that war became national news! The dirty tactics I personally witnessed committed by Ms Copps team thoroughly disgusted me! I knew Tony Valeri rather well and considered him an honourable man, far more than "Tequila Sheila". Anyhow, it sounds like your mistake was to approach the position of candidate as a job interview. This is politics, after all! You should have made your intentions known to the local riding people at least several months earlier. If you had taken the time to make yourself known as a committed member first and then an ambitious candidate you would almost certainly have been up for consideration. You have to approach becoming a local candidate with the same style as being a candidate actually campaigning to be the MP! It is not a test where you must pass with a certain mark. It is politics and politics at every level is a popularity contest! It may seem to you that the NDP just picked people at random anyway, with less qualifications than you. You're probably right, but I'll bet they knew those they DID choose on a personal level better than you! When you don't know much about any of your choices you don't just compare resumes. Again, this is politics! You try to go with personal impressions. IMHO, of course! Please don't get discouraged. If I were you I would become an active volunteer in my local riding and make sure that the riding executives all know of my ambitions. If you pay your dues then with the qualifications you mentioned it would be very hard for them to refuse you at least the chance of winning a nomination vote.

Not quite, August! If we had a truly competitive situation I would agree with you but that's clearly not the case! Those retail gas stations may compete with each other but that is the SMALLEST portion of the price! They all have essentially the same cost, since there are so few refineries to supply them. With so few refineries, price fixing is easy! You don't need a signed agreement, which would be a silly way for a company to get busted. You just need a gentleman's "understanding". The term I believe is "oligopoly", where a market is supplied by just a few players. In general I agree with your "laissez-faire" views on economics, August. I just don't share your assumptions that we exist in a truly free market!

Be careful what you wish for, mon ami! You might get it! You see, what you are really saying is that if the system sucks that badly then Quebec could just do what it wants. It could decide to separate however it wants, ignoring any laws to the contrary that are inconvenient. That could happen, I agree. However, the sword has two edges. If Quebec were to ignore the legalities then TROC would certainly do the same. Things could get rather ugly!

Nice "straw man" argument! You scold me for what I never said! You ARE on the left, I guess! Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if I'm treated as more important than someone else. Or less important, for that matter. I have never held expectations of special treatment and would feel embarrassed if I received it! No, I don't complain that I have to wait longer than some other citizen. I complain that we ALL often have to wait too long! The argument is whether or not the system is timely, efficient and cost-effective/self-sustaining. You are attempting to deflect legitimate criticism as mere "snobbery". Again, nice try!

He needs no excuses! Anyone who tries to do the impossible is an idiot! I can try to outfight some Andre the Giant type. The odds are overwhelming that I will lose but I suppose I could gain some points for trying. I could also try to pick up a bus with my baby finger! That's so impossible that anyone who saw me try would assume that I am mentally challenged, for good reason. The very structure of our amending formula for the Constitution makes it all but impossible to happen. Certainly a majority government in itself would not be enough. No, first someone will have to encourage the idea among the population at large. If the idea becomes popular then provincial governments will have no choice but to support the idea. Certainly, if Quebec just absolutely refuses or makes some demands so excessive as to upset the rest of Canada then the idea will simply die. The Quebec people would have to want it first. Then, if their provincial government didn't respond to their wishes they would give them a "Duceppe" style kick in the ass!

There always seems to be some confusion when we debate private health care. Some of it is deliberate! You see, many on the left define private health care as anything non-unionized! Most hospital staff belong to unions. There has been a growth of private clinics, especially in Quebec, that provide many of the services formerly available only at a hospital. These of course almost always employ non-union workers. So many critics on the left will make the claim that these clinics are "private health care" and should be closed down. In reality, these clinics are still covered by the Canadian Health Act. Nobody has to pay for their services. Public health care covers these costs exactly the same as if the care was done buy a hospital! These private clinics save the system money. To label them as inherently "evil" by virtue of being "private health care" is really a sneaky trick.

I remember Joe! I also remember Kickapoo Joy Juice, Fearless Fosdick and many others. Still, for the best in comic strip political humour, it was all about a certain swamp dwelling possum and his friend, Churchy LaFemme...

There you go again with the PR thing. You MUST live in Toronto! Whatever, you obviously don't give a damn for regional and local representation! Every small town citizen in every smaller province in Canada would feel like you kicked him in the gut!

When did they ever promise to ABOLISH the Senate? I've never heard that once from the CPC! Many times Harper has talked about reforming it, usually as a bone to his Reform base for something equal, elected and effective. Of course, as long as he's in a minority situation he knows he never would be expected to deliver. Our constitutional amending formula has such impossible to achieve rules to follow that even with a majority it will probably never happen. It seems strange that every other country with a Constitution put in amending formulae that were reasonably possible to achieve, in order to modify their document to suit changing times or correct overlooked factors in the original version. Canada it seems decided to set down a formula that would be almost impossible to ever achieve in practice! It sure looks as if the politicians involved wanted to make sure we NEVER changed our Constitution! One can't help but wonder why...

"Shoes for Industry! Shoes for the Dead! Shoes for Industry! Hi! I'm Joe Beets! What chance does a deceased returning war veteran have in today's a-go-go economy? Well, first, take off your shoes! Now, can't you see how increased spending opportunities means more work for everyone? And more of it, too!" ---Firesign Theater Sorry. It's just that often when someone is spouting a particularly marxist political or economic theory - that they demand be taken as fact because THEY believe it! - it seems that a quote from either Firesign Theater or Monty Python is appropriate.

Well, his model is rather derogatory but his point is valid. The NDp historically has not had the strongest voter turnout.

What if? What if? Well, as long as we're in the realm of the hypothetical, I've met Harper and I believe that he WOULD respect the party who won the most seats! He would not join any coalition and he most emphatically would NOT pull an Ignatieff and constantly vote to prop up the coalition ruling party! I believe that he would simply play the role of a proper opposition party until such time as a confidence vote would bring them down. At that point he would have ammunition to tell the voters they need to give HIM a majority!. Of course, that's just my opinion!

Try this link: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2008-ONT.html I won't spend the time for you but if you care to just click on "ONT" you'll get the actual vote numbers and percentages for every riding in Ontario for 2008. In just a few pages I spotted a number of ridings where it is perfectly obvious that if Jack is stealing much of the Liberal vote the Tories will likely win! If you scroll through ALL the pages you can get your own total. As I said, I won't spend the time doing it for you. After all, you're the one who doesn't believe it so you should find out for yourself.

"Serious harm to Canada"? I would agree. However, the experience might be a painful but necessary thing. I'm a great believer in populism. I understand that the average voter today is not that well educated on the differences between the parties. Having the NDP in power would be a very quick and painful lesson, as jobs fled the country in droves! Sometimes, people have to make mistakes in order to learn. If an NDP government proved to be similar to that of Bob Rae's in Ontario, vast numbers of Canadians would get a quick object lesson on how much the wrong party COULD hurt their individual lives! When they lose their job and taxes go up they will understand all too well. It's possible that an NDP government would change its stripes and become sensible but I doubt it. They just don't have enough sensible people in their caucus. They think that if they need money just find another business to tax! Either way, Canada would benefit. They would either get the government of their dreams, where we would all have a well-paying job with a light tax load on the pay cheque or we would have a government of nightmares, which would give us a necessary education. Let it happen, I say! I'm tired of opinions instead of established facts! It would be great to have things proven one way or the other by reality!

Maybe yes, maybe no, TB! I still think a Tory majority is a possibility. It will depend on vote splits in Ontario, which the NDP surge will surely help! So I wouldn't totally write the idea off. I think we can agree that the Liberals are going to lose, big time! The big question will be, how many will go to the NDP and how many blue Liberals still exist that might go to the Tories? Even more basic, how much of the Liberal and NDP support will actually come out and vote? Both of those parties have never brought out their vote nearly as well as the Tories. The Tories have the advantage of conscientious older folks raised on the idea of civic duty. We shall see on Monday! If I am wrong I will cheerfully admit it and if Harry, Rick and others are proven wrong I will take great amusement in reminding them of their predictions!

Well, I just got tired of seeing posts claiming that 65% of the electorate hate Harper. That figure apparently comes from just adding up the support percentages of the other parties. I thought that if that's true then one could make a similar statement about Jack.

If the NDP are running 30%, does that mean that 70% of the voters hate Jack Layton? Just trying to see if the logic and math are consistent in these circles...