Wild Bill

Scrib, it's a typical Canadian situation. We have rules but don't bother to enforce them. The last time a pair of enumerator ladies knocked on my door they didn't ask for any proof at all. They took my word for who lived there and their citizenship. I asked them specifically what was to stop someone not a citizen from lying. One lady immediately said that lying about eligibility was a federal offence! I then asked, is there any followup or enforcement process to determine if someone lied, let alone punish them for it. Both ladies at that point had nothing further to say and left! Now, my experience as a scrutineer tells me that any scrutineer may challenge any voter on the list. This harkens back to the days when ridings were less populated and a scrutineer at any given polling station likely knew all his neighbours. Scrutineers of course are witnesses for their parties, allowing input to the process to ensure things are on the up and up. Today, the chances of knowing everyone are much lower. Worse yet, no one wants to make a challenge for fear of the inevitable accusation of racism! It's guaranteed that the other parties would rather make a racism charge at their opponent than actually ensure that only real citizens voted. This would be true for Tories as much as Liberals and NDP, I suspect. Since it's so easy and virtually unpoliced, I have no doubt its quite common in large metro areas like Toronto that non-citizens get on the voters list all the time. Certain parties traditionally have greatly benefited from the immigrant vote and certainly would not want any challenging going on that might reduce their own voting numbers. This situation may be slowly changing. More and more immigrants have been here long enough to begin to see things more clearly in their politics. They are becoming as diverse in their choices as longtime "domestic" Canadians. That's a GOOD thing!

I'm not sure about your complaint here. Our system already has "rep by pop" in the House of Commons. True, the individual ridings are locally based but the number of ridings is established mainly by population density. Over the years that can change and we see areas underrepresented, like B.C. being short a few seats for their increased population and Quebec having extra due to population loss. Harper tried to address that but of course there was opposition from those who LIKE the status quo! The very reason for having a 2 House Parliament is to have one based on population and one based on geography. This provides a check and balance system, so that a big region cannot easily screw a small one. Since we have such an ineffective and unequal Senate it is no wonder we have such deep resentments in many of the smaller provinces. You seem to see the situation as simply a vast, amorphous electorate, from "Sea to Shining Sea". You talk about percentage of the popular vote as if regional representation is irrelevant. You are entitled to your view but I submit that most Canadians find it VERY relevant! They WANT a representative from their own area who understands their needs! Your idea sounds like the very epitome of what the Reformers fought against - the idea that an MP should represent his riding's views to Ottawa and not Ottawa's views back to the riding. Unless you have a good explanation up your sleeve, your political model seems extremely "top down".

Why should we bar people with dementia from voting? We allow them to serve in the Senate!

Star, anyone who tried to use math in that way with an exam problem would fail! The statement is not commutative - it doesn't work both ways. All you can say for certain is that the 36% that voted for Harper most probably liked him! The other 64% is an unknown quantity. We can guess as to how that unknown quantity felt but that's all. We know that many people don't give a damn about politics. We know that some folks are incapable of understanding and making a choice. Some folks are just lazy. Some folks voted NDP but would NEVER vote Liberal! Others are die-hard Liberals and would never be happy if the NDP won. Some folks might actually LIKE Harper but would never abandon their perpetual choice. They will vote Liberal, even though they don't like Ignatieff. Considering Harper's personal high numbers in the polls this is quite likely. On and on and on. We can't tell what that 64% represents because we simply don't know. To make the claim that it is ALL anti-Harper is like statistical data that was just pulled out of your butt! I'm surprised that some of the posters who are always demanding cites for statements would themselves make this one. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as how we dream it would be, if we wish to have any hope of changing it. It wouldn't bother me a whit to see Harper brought down, as long as a BETTER choice won! Until then, Harper is the least of all evils. Let's hope the "other guys" spruce up their acts and give us some better choices next time. We can't blame Harper because the "other guys" suck!

Not exactly. I do believe that the partisan slams are predominately against Harper. Perhaps we should go back through some of the threads and count them. I could name specific posters but that would likely just cause more trouble. Myself, as I've said many times, I only support the Tories for lack of anything better. Perhaps next time the Liberals will give me something worth voting for. I have a lot of deep grudges against Harper for abandoning all the Reform values when they merged the parties. I just have no other choices I can stomach! That being said, I can certainly see his flaws and recognize when he does something wrong. The difference is, there are a number of posters on this board who call virtually everything he does a crime against the universe! It's just stupid - so "high school".

Never had a problem with that, myself. That's along the lines of how I see my country. That being said, unlike some folks, I've never felt I had the right to tell OTHER Canadians how they're supposed to see their country! It would be more positive to listen to Albertan views and try to deal with them than to simply tell them they are wrong and should suck it up! Or that the hardships they experienced from the NEP should simply be forgotten.

Molly, has everyone forgotten how the Opposition howled at Harper until he cut of Helena's head? The longer he delayed the more nasty names they called him! Now, after he did what they wanted, they're howling at him for doing it! I know it's just politics but the hypocrisy always sickens me. And Helena is shameless at playing for the camera, dragging out babies for Pete's Sake! Has everyone forgotten her famous meltdown at that Nfld. airport? Does anyone really believe that she knew nothing about what her husband was up to and had no participation herself? It's like believing that Mulroney genuinely didn't know there was anything sneaky about Herr Schreiber and the Airbus money! I think a bit of non-partisan objectivity is sorely needed on this board...

I'm not so sure, TB! There's some strange things happening. First off, it's a given that the political parties have access to better polls than the MSM. No doubt they pay more for them! So they can see things that we mortals cannot. Even more, their poll results are not slanted by the need to sell papers. So when we see the Ignatieff team drag out the old guys from the days of scandal, it MUST show some desperation! Since before the start of the campaign, the Liberals and the Conservatives really haven't moved a great deal in the polls. The MSM frantically tries to make it look like a race, boosting up every slight increase in a Liberal poll and exaggerating the negative effect of any slight Tory drop. In reality, the Liberals were doomed to a poor showing at the start and so far Ignatieff has done little or nothing to improve it. The only one to show improvement is Layton! This will likely be an advantage to Harper, as the NDP tend to steal far more Liberal votes than Tory. We might be starting to see a Liberal meltdown comparable to the Campbell election. Perhaps the NDP are destined to become the Official Opposition and the Liberals will fade out like they did in Britain. I don't think it likely but it is possible. Still, I've believed all along that the big guns in the Liberal party expected to take at least two terms to get past the stink of AdScam. Dion and Ignatieff are mere placeholders. The NEXT election we will likely see better leadership candidates and much more excitement! For that to happen though, Ignatieff has to at least "save the furniture". He may not be expected to make gains but no one in the party wants him to suffer any losses. If he can't manage at least a respectable showing the NDP might well displace the Liberals, perhaps for a long time. Finally, things are starting to get more interesting! I was really getting rather bored with it all!

Howdy, neighbour! I'm in the middle of buying a house just around the corner from "Two Cougars and a Cafe". Best breakfast in town! As you can imagine, a classic Liberal like me is not thrilled with getting Dave Christopherson and the NDP. Still, one strength of the NDP has always been the quality of service at their riding offices. If your pogey cheques are screwed up or you are having troubles getting your pension, an NDP riding office worker will straighten it out faster than that of any other party, it seems. They do a great job. I think it's because socialists tend to be the type that LOVES nitpicking bureaucracy! Like union negotiators for a contract at a steel plant - lots of clauses and sub-clauses. A specific rule for EVERY possible situation! Of course, as the perpetual opposition, the NDP rarely has the power to bring home any pork. Unless they are the key in propping some other party up in a minority situation they have diddley-squat power to get anything for their own ridings. Might as well be represented by the Yogic Flyers! That's just the way it is with politics. The only party with any power is the one IN power! The only exception is the BQ. Somehow Ottawa hasn't figured out that it's a waste of time to keep bribing them. They will never change their minds and only become dependent on the freebies. Still, I'm getting older. Soon I might NEED Dave's folks to help with my pension! Meanwhile, I keep hearing people talk about how "60% of the people don't like Harper". What an inflated, illogical load of crap! First off, that 60% often includes those who didn't vote. How on earth can anyone tell what those who didn't vote wanted? If they wanted anything at all? Second, who says that ALL those people would get along if one of the other parties won? Would all the NDP just smile and cheer because they got a Liberal government instead of a Tory one? Isn't it possible that Liberals and NDippers have different values? Perhaps that's why they have different parties! How can you just lump their numbers together as an attack on Harper? I can't figure out if it's patronizing or just insulting! Speaking for myself, I would have no problem seeing the NDP become the Official Opposition and the Liberals fading away. We then would have clear choices. The NDP have their values. I may not agree with most of them but I can't deny they have them and respect them for it. The Liberals haven't had any fixed values or political philosophy for generations, if ever. They have been just a brokerage party. They will play any music you want as long as you listen to the station! This has been a very successful strategy as long as they have been a party that has either been in power or was most likely to be returned to power. When they are as far down as they are now it is proving to be a very POOR strategy!Their promises are empty, since it is very unlikely they will be in a position to make good on them! Unless they make some major changes, they no longer bring anything to the electoral party. Give us a choice between the Tories and the NDP. If the NDP would just get out of the 60's and become more like Tony Blair's Labour Party, or even Gary Doer's NDP! Might be worth a thread to discuss, do we even need the Liberal Party anymore?

That's it! That's the last time someone implies I'm a Conservative! Shakeyhands, from now on I will constantly refer to you as the president of the "Friends of the Martians Space Party!" Why not? It's about as true as my being a Conservative!

Maybe you're right, TB. As I said, I'm not sure if Harper really cares that much about Senate Reform. Certainly, it's not high on his list of priorities. I agree with you that it would open up some Quebec worms but it would also have great benefits in other areas of the country. You ask if "Senate reform is worth pulling the pin on the grenade" but there are other parts of the country that have long since tired of Quebec being the one to hold the grenade! Appeasing Quebec has become such a reflexive action by both the Liberals and Tories in Ottawa that I'm not sure if they have an accurate picture of the resentment building in TROC. One thing is for sure, the status quo is a wonderful thing, if your Gilles Duceppe! Just keep those transfer payments rolling! BTW, just what bones has Harper thrown to his Reform wing? Frankly, so far I haven't seen ANY!

Isn't that long enough, guyser? They have oil and gas reserves for a couple of centuries. Nobody has yet totaled up all the shale gas potential, either. So when you say "for the time being" that could mean 300 years! That's lots of time to develop new assets. I don't think Alberta would ever go bankrupt. The plain fact is that Ottawa has treated Alberta very poorly over the years. Now Alberta has the ability to go it alone, or to separate and join the USA. In a way, Ottawa FORCED them to become strong enough they wouldn't need Canada anymore! It surprises me that even now it seems most Albertans still are proud Canadians and have no desire to leave Confederation. Still, to keep kicking them seems a very stupid and short sighted thing to do.

So far I've seen no one give you the straight dope, Benz. I was one of the first card carrying members of Reform when they moved into Ontario. I served as a riding Director for a few terms. So I feel I have some perspective to better answer your question. The answer is, there is no longer any Reform! Not officially and not as part of the present CPC! I know that's hard to believe, considering how at the time of their merger the Reform/Alliance was so big and the remains of the PC's were so tiny. However, once the merger was done and Harper became leader, he slowly but steadily purged every trace of Reform out of the new party. In effect, the party now is a clone of the old Mulroney PC party. You may have noticed how one of the first things done was to bring Mulroney, Reform's hated nemesis, back from the wilderness to be a party "elder statesman". Unfortunately for Harper, Mulroney brought his scandals on his deals with Schreiber/Airbus affair along with him! Although many of the old people are still around, Harper has eliminated virtually every trace of the old Reform Party. There is nothing left of their Blue Book of party policies. When's the last time you heard any mention of Manning's name from the new CPC? The people who don't like Harper still fling the name "Reform" at him just because to them it's a nasty word, like "bastard". It doesn't really mean anything to them in itself. These are the same people who hated the Reform Party! It's just bad emotion so don't expect anything logical from it. I think it's possible that Harper might still believe in a reformed Senate but he has become the ultimate pragmatic politician. He obviously has studied Machiavelli, who wrote long ago that the first duty of the Prince is to retain power, since otherwise he can't do anything. Harper knows that Senate reform will be a very difficult thing to accomplish. He will need to have a strong majority or he will be just pissing in the wind. With a minority government it could never happen and worse yet for him, might bring his government down. I hope this makes things more clear.

That's just backpedaling, Harry! Some of the stuff posted here about Harper has been so over the top as to suggest some members need to check their meds. Some simple perspective is needed. No matter who wins the election, the world will NOT end! Harper is not going to sell us out to the lizard folk from "V". Ignatieff is NOT a fifth columnist for the Americans. Layton is NOT a commie undercover agent. True, some choices would mean getting taxed more and/or losing out on some services. So what? That's what it means to be Canadian! We ALWAYS get screwed! Yet we still survive! I always remember what a friend in B.C. told me about their provincial politics. He said the reason why they keep alternating between a Liberal and an NDP provincial government is because they needed one to throw them a party and then the other to pay for it! This is not necessarily a bad thing! At least the people get a party once in a while. For Pete's Sake, LIGHTEN UP!

"Shirley, you can't be serious!"

Mr. Toads, with all due respect, that's just anti-conservative, partisan, non-objective crap! :angry: It reminds me of the old Reform days. The Liberals and the NDP would start making cracks about Reform being made up of old men. Reform would gently point out that they had more women MPs than either the Liberals or the "Dippers. Then the line would be "They're made up of old WHITE men!" Again, Reform would respond with the obvious - there were more visible minority faces among the Reform caucus sitting in the House than there were on the other sides! Some folks seem to run on caricatures, letting their dislike for a party or individual colour their impressions of them. So they make ad hominem attacks first, without really checking if they are true or not. Ask Deb Gray if her party supported women! She was worth TEN Hedy Fry's or Carolyn Parrish's!

Star, you can pile up excuses for Rae till the cows come home and it just doesn't matter! They can all be TRUE and it still doesn't matter! Ontarioans overwhelmingly despise Bob Rae for his term in provincial power. It would be easier to get Mulroney voted back in as PM! They don't care to even listen to any excuses. They wrote him and his party off long ago. Both Bob Rae and the NDP are going nowhere in Ontario for a long time, long enough for all the people who were around then to die off, leaving younger folks with no bad memories. As I said, it doesn't matter if your excuses are true. It's just the way it is. Period and end of story.

Well, the positives may outweigh the negatives in Vaughn but I doubt if that's the case in Caledonia! The bitterness there will outlast that in Alberta for the NEP. Most interesting, Bob Speller is back in the race for Haldiman-Brant, the Caledonia seat. Bob is a Liberal and represented the riding for many years until bumped out by Tory Diane Findley, who lost much respect in the riding for doing little or nothing to protect the Caledonians during the protest. Bob was very well liked during his terms and has a strong agricultural background that is appreciated in an agricultural riding. Looks like we might see a wash - a win in Vaughn and a loss in Haldimand-Brant.

Don't forget TB, it's Fantino! He was parachuted into that riding, over the choices and feelings of the incumbent riding association. He was championed by the PMO as some kind of law and order hero! Meanwhile, back on the ground, a LOT of people see him as the scourge of Caledonia! The man who abandoned an entire town to the wolves, removing the people's right to the protection of the law. That wasn't the only time Fantino did some questionable things, either. It was a standard joke in the Ontario press for years that Fantino never did anything without having some minor functionary available to be quickly thrown under a bus to protect his reputation, if anything hit the fan. I would thinkt that it's inevitable that there are many hard feelings among the workers in that riding! Fantino was Harper's choice - a total "top down" decision that likely had very little on the ground support. I still haven't decided if backing Fantino was a considered decision that felt the positives outweighed the negatives or if it was another case of "headquarter ignorance".

I think you're right, MB! This election may go down in history as the most boring!

"Ultimate effect"? Sounds ominous! Still, if it were to be so bad, why is it that Britain, (the mother of our system), Australia, America and virtually every other two House democracy has evolved a more democratic and effective Senate without Armegeddon happening? In fact, we seem to be the ONLY one with an unelected, unequal and ineffective Senate! If your dire implication is correct, we must be the envy of the free world!

Let me see if I understand the basis for your premise. You start off by hating Harper. Then you see some VERY early polls that claim he lost the French language debate. You assume that the results of the debate will totally mirror the voting patterns of the Quebec people and loudly predict that Harper is doomed! It's kinda thin, Harry! The results of the debates have never been as accurate as you pretend before. Why on earth would they be now? Did every voter in Quebec watch the debate? How do you know how those that didn't will vote? How do you know if someone grants that one candidate won the debate they would instantly abandon their choice? Do you think that if Duceppe lost the debate, ALL his supporters would promptly switch to another party? So far, all you've done is show the world how much you want Harper to lose. You've got little or nothing to substantiate your opinion. On May 2, we will see what will happen. A lot of folks on MLW are going to get laughed at for their poor predictions as we dissect the entrails and read the bones of how and where voters voted. It should be great fun and I'm very much looking forward to it!

All I meant was, to the "ordinary Joe", a minority government where another party props up one who failed to make a majority but still got the most seats is familiar and comfortable. A "coalition of losers" is what I define as parties with the LEAST number of seats gang up to oust the one who took the most, again with not enough for a majority. That can feel like a trick or a ruse, like a sneaky lawyer getting an obvious felon off the hook. It has been relatively unknown to happen. The technicalities of constitutional law are for us MLW nitpickers to fight over. The average person doesn't know and doesn't care! However, he still votes, at least a good portion of the electorate does. He will be influenced by his opinions and as I keep saying, waving a constitutional rulebook in front of his face will have little or no effect at all. I suspect that if a "loser coalition" were to be formed all the Tory voters would be upset and also SOME of each of the other parties involved! This means that the number supporting the opposition parties would have to be somewhat less than the total of all those who supported them. The question will be, how much less? So there is a very real chance of a negative reaction. Perhaps Canadians have become so jaded that no one cares anymore. Or not! I really am not sure anymore but as I said, it's not me who will suffer for trying it and finding it to be a mistake. It could be great entertainment!

Not quite true, BM! First off, you have to make a distinction between some of the provincial NDP governments and the federal NDP party. Bob Rae's term in Ontario was NOTHING like we would have seen from the Manitoba NDP! Rae's party WAS full of "radical leftists"! They WERE "poor money managers", especially "Pink Floyd", his finance minister! Second, the NDP has moderated a bit from its start but there are still a very large number of older citizens who remember. It may not be true today but back in the late 60's and early 70's the NDP was an official member of the International Worker's Brotherhood, a known communist organization. They didn't talk about it much but they didn't hide it either. As I said, they have moderated somewhat but people tend to carry impressions for years without revisiting them. The federal NDP is still far more like it was in 1965 than the British Labour Party of today! Replace Jack Layton with a Gary Doer and you would have a very different federal NDP party! Give it some time and it might even have a shot at winning power!

Define coalition. If you mean minority governments, we've had all kinds. However, if you mean "coalition of the losers", that's very rare. So one can't assume that both kinds of coalitions would be equally well accepted by the population at large. I've been becoming more and more curious about such a situation, to the point where I almost want to see it happen! I'm a great believer in people having to "put their money where their mouth is!", so to speak. If the losing parties want to risk it, I would admire their courage. If it works with no negative consequences, I would salute them. However, if a large portion of the electorate grew angry and decided to never again vote for them as long as they were alive, I would be ROTF, LMAO!