Wild Bill

You've answered only party of the puzzle. The economic reasons you've stated are understandable and reasonable. The implication that Avro chose to embarrass the Tories is plausible as well, even if one doesn't agree. What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork? Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft. It's the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the plane that puzzles me, unless the Tories simply were afraid that in a few years some country would produce a plane similar to the Arrow that performed so well that it would embarrass their government's decision. And it's not so much the destruction of the Arrow as the destruction of an entire industry, regulating Canada in yet another area to be just another resource/agricultural country. I mean, so are countries like Bangladesh! It's almost as if Canada produces companies like RIM in spite of its governments! Is there some master plan in Ottawa that includes all parties to keep us from becoming high tech manufacturing leaders?

An electric bill we can AFFORD to pay? Caledonians once again getting police protection?

Well, that's the theoretical view! However, I've lived the reality! Nowhere have I said that anyone should not have the right to run as an independent or even a fringe party. That has been happening since 1867, when we became a country! Canada has had MANY new parties spring up over the past 144 years. I'm just saying that it is neither necessary nor even a good idea to continually strive to make it easier and easier for them! What is the end goal? Three lager louts in a pub decide they want to form a new party and instantly they are to be given scads of tax money and a place at all candidate debates? There has to be some kind of bar for the entry level. I'm saying that our status quo has worked well for all this time. Parties have exceeded that bar and become established because they truly represented at least a minimally adequate level of popular opinion. I belonged to the Reform Party, which back in the late 1980's sprang from virtually zero to becoming the Official Opposition in 10 years! They had millions of voters! And they did it mostly by private donations from individual citizens, not Big Business and Big Unions. If they could do it, so can the Greens! Nowadays, there is a disgusting tendency to make things easier and easier for any contender in any field, rather than encourage contenders to strive for excellence. When every child gets a trophy no trophy actually means anything anymore. All the talk you hear about electoral reform in Canada is really just attempts to make it easier for losers to get into power anyway! The very idea cheapens and degrades the accomplishments of the Reform Party, the NDP/CCF, the Progressives and many others. The Greens should win their own damn trophy! If they can't then they deserve to die. If there is truly support among citizens for their views then some other new party will arise, pick up the banner and keep trying!

"Keeping Reformers in line"? That's one view, I suppose. I would say that what he's really done is restrict choices. Those voters who would prefer a more Reform-style of party have no one to vote for - they vote for Harper by default. This is EXACTLY the situation that gave rise to the Reform Party in the first place! People don't like to have their choices restricted. It's a baby boomer thing! It's done to us all the time, not just with politics but also commercial product marketing. The difference here is that most of the time the average Joe is unaware of it. I'll never forget the first time I went with my wife on one of her cross-border shopping trips. I saw flavours of fruit juice and even good old Campbell's soup that I had never seen in my life! The brands were mostly the same but the variety of choices just blew my mind! Later, I began to resent not finding those choices in my domestic supermarkets. As I gained experience in a distribution business I began to understand that Canadian stores viewed their market as too small to justify all those extra flavours. It was easier and more profitable to buy higher volumes of chicken noodle than smaller volumes of too many different flavours, like "prime rib" beef. One example that sticks in my mind is Welch's white grape juice. I was almost 40 years old and had never seen anything but the usual purple before! Things changed during the early 90's and the variety situation began to improve on our side of the border but I've never forgotten, or forgiven. So essentially we have all those millions of voters who formerly voted for Reform gradually getting more and more pissed off for lack of a palatable choice! Way back at the start of things we used to chant at meetings "Liberal, Tory, same old story!" What Harper may not realize is that many of these voters KNOW what he's doing! It doesn't matter if you yourself are a Reform type of voter. What matters is that we have a huge demographic that is being denied a choice, after having had one for more than a decade. It's just not human nature for these people to decide "Oh well! Harper's making sure that I can never have a Reform type of candidate to vote for ever again! I guess it's for my own good and I will just learn to love being the same type of voter that voted for the PC's and Brian Mulroney, even though I hated Mulroney's style of government with a passion way back then!" No, you restrict choices you just begin to make your market angry! It may take a while but eventually there is a reaction. Those people who are supporting you for lack of any other choice become hungrier and hungrier for a choice that better suits their fancy. You begin to lose all your brand loyalty, to the point that if a competitor comes along offering YOUR customers a better choice those same customers drop you like hamburger that was left in the hot sun all weekend! That's exactly what happened to the PCs when Reform first appeared. Reform grew like a weed by stealing not just the PCs voters but all their campaign riding workers and experienced party brass! The PCs ended up with a few of their generals left but they had lost all the sargeants who knew how to make things WORK! Harper knows the dangers of what he's doing. He's just very confident he can manage the situation! I would agree that he can, for a while. I just predict that if he DOESN'T address the situation to the satisfaction of those Reformer voters he WILL split the party again!

Oh yeah! And he gives oral sex to bears in the woods, when they're not looking! And Ignatieff is a big pooh-pooh head! Can't you give an argument that has some depth to it? Ad hominem insults are really rather useless for a real debate, you know!

The list correctly shows my riding of Hamilton East-Stoney Creek as having an NDP MP. I'm going to go on record as saying that this one may be impossible to predict but for the first time the Tories have a chance. This riding was created a while back by taking a piece of the old Hamilton East riding of Sheila Copps and the riding of Stoney Creek which ran almost to St. Catherines, represented by Tony Valeri. Some might remember that the new boundaries led to a vicious nomination battle between Copps and Valeri, which Valeri won. The new boundaries really led to a screwy demographic. Hamilton East gave a strong NDP element but Stoney Creek was always intensely Liberal. The Tories were usually always 3rd place, except for anomalies like Mulroney sweeps. So it has appeared that this riding would be perpetually NDP or Liberal, with candidates always winning by very small margins and so far that has proven to be the case. Wins have been by only a few hundreds of votes. This time the Tories are running Brad Clark. This is a big change! Brad was a minister in the Harris government, known for being enough of a maverick to buck his own party opposing amalgamation. Since then he has been serving as a powerful local municipal councilor. Brad has been a VERY popular local politician, drawing support from across the political spectrum. Imagine a Tory that has been a strong and effective environmentalist with issues like local dump sites! He tends to win by strong margins. You might think that such a guy would be a shoe-in, considering the other candidates have nowhere near the public charisma. The incumbent MP, Wayne Marston, has been like most NDP members. He has built a candidates office where his people are first rate at helping his constituents deal with bureaucratic problems with the federal government. However, he does belong to the NDP which means that he will always be limited in what he can bring home to the table. The liberal candidate is a first-time woman who is next to totally unknown. Still, the Tories are starting from a LONG ways back! Last time they lost by about 8,000 votes, in a riding where approximately 48,000 cast their ballots. So the Tories have the strongest candidate in a riding where historically they have fared the poorest! Perhaps the riding will ride the polls, perhaps not. This might be an interesting riding to serve as an example for the old debate of whether most people vote for the man or the party. I'm going to enjoy watching this one!

I just can't help but side with Harper on this one. We pay enough taxes! Just because we voted for one of the schmucks doesn't necessarily mean we agree with giving them government welfare! I believe that parties should get their own donations, on a voluntary basis. We can quibble about donation limits and restrictions on big companies or unions but if a party is truly important to a significant number of voters then it should have no trouble getting some of them to pony up! Particularly with the BQ! If separation is so important to so many Quebecois then surely they wouldn't mind dropping a few loons or toons in the bucket! When a party DOESN"T get much money from voluntary donations I can't help but feel they are just a bunch of moochers!

Right here! http://www.libertarian.ca/ You will likely find it different than the American definition, if you go by the one that is composed of survivalists and government conspiracy fanatics.

I don't feel any need to have the last word! The point of these discussions is not to win an argument. It's to learn and arrive closer to the truth! Any husband knows that someone can use tactics to win an argument but not actually be in the right! It's just become not worth it to fight anymore! So far, I'm not learning anything from you except you personally don't like Harper and Conservatives. So what? I don't like disco or hiphop! I believe that if you can't play and you can't sing and you can't write good poetry then you rap! Again, so what? These are just my own personal beliefs. I could say that Ignatieff will never win any gains this election. Unless I give good REASONS and EVIDENCE that enough voters feel that way I am just really spouting my own likes or dislikes. Don't just tell us what you like or don't like. Tell us what you think voters AS A WHOLE are actually going to do, and WHY! Most of all, don't assume that EVERYBODY likes or dislikes the same as you! They DON'T! What the nation is going to do this election is much more interesting than just what you or I happen to like.

Were they right? Depends on your definition, Betsy. Actually, I'm more a CLASSIC liberal, by the old dictionary definitions. Less government, more rights to the individual, laissez-faire economics. All the parties today vary widely from the dictionary definitions as they have striven to stake out their place among the different types of voters. The modern Liberal party is little or nothing like the classic Liberal definition. If anything, the party that comes closest might be the Libertarians but what's the point of voting for them? Might as well vote for the Rhinos, or the Greens! I think that the questions were dreamed up by someone who never read the classic definitions but rather went by the popular stereotypes believed today, especially among lefties like the CBC! In their mind, Conservatives are ALL anti-abortion, pro-church, big on guns, etc. Liberals are more caring, the NDP worries more about poor people starving than the need to defend the country and so on. These caricatures are SO simplistic! When I was in the Reform Party we used to talk about this all the time. I never met ANYBODY who fitted the CBC definition of a Reformer! I met all kinds of rural folk who had no problem with gays and gay marriage and had very different opinions among themselves about military spending. Here on this board I've met many friends who might be described as leftwing yet espouse the need for Canada to rebuild its military capabilities. There are different opinions on different issues all over the place! So again, I think the CBC used leftwing caricatures for their definitions. They also suffer from the media's constant need to dumb everything down to make it simple for a sound bite or a few lines in the newspaper. When you dumb ideas down you tend to make them much less accurate.

I just don't know where to start in making a reply. Your post is about as focused as a fart in a mitt! First off, who cares about Obama? That's the politics of a foreign country. Second, is your premise that Steve Paikin being moderator of the debate was personally responsible for the low voter turnout of that election? Seriously? Then you go on to imply that Steve should have run roughshod over his producers? Who says he could have gotten away with it? Your next statement borders on sheer arrogance: "Until there is proof that this direction is working then I am right.Period!" First YOU chose to define the debate and the choice of moderator as the prime factor in the effectiveness of the debate in motivating voters (you do make the disclaimer that Steve was only a small part of the picture but you write your entire post as if it was the LARGEST part!). THEN you declare that until someone can prove that Steve was a good choice then you must be right! When you look up "non sequitur", do we see your picture? Finally, you sum up with the implication that Conservatives are happy with low voter turnout. That just makes no sense at all! Every political party wants to see a bigger voter turnout, as long as the biggest portion is for themselves! You think the Liberals would want to have a LOW turnout amongst their voters, or the NDP? As for your final point, if someone chooses not to vote, who gives a damn what he thinks? He has made himself irrelevant, by being too lazy to THINK to formulate a considered opinion and to ACT by getting his ass off the couch and go down to vote! Perhaps we should stop debating with you. Too much ego and not enough logic. Besides, myself and a lot of others would like to see marijuana legalized. If Harper's boys were to read your posts they would use them as an excuse to keep it illegal for ever, as evidence of alteration of brain chemistry.

Go here for the regional breakdowns. It looks even worse for the Liberals! http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110401-BallotE.pdf

Sounds typical for Jack and the NDP. I believe it was one of the NP columnists who wrote that the Greens were against the Alberta oilsands because they provided oil mixed with too much carbon and groundwater, in favour of mid-East oil which is soaked in blood!

The point that Steve was respected for the job he has done before was a good one. So far, you have given nothing but your own opinion that he is a bad choice. I liked him! There! My vote cancels out yours! Can you give us a cite or anything to substantiate your opinion that the Canadian viewing public doesn't like Steve and how ratings would improve if we had a blind, lesbian bluegrass singer with one leg? You really should not have been surprised at the reaction to your OP suggestion. This is NOT a leftwing board! We have some leftwing members but we are nothing like that profane, bigotted cesspool called "rubble.ca". You based your argument on some sort of affirmative action selection for a moderator. Most folks on this board see affirmative action as "reverse discrimination", or more simply, just discrimination. People are people and that's enough! Putting them into quotas is patronizing at best. It's a Star Trek world today, where not only can a black man be a captain or a woman an admiral but even more, NOBODY EVEN NOTICES! And that's the way it should be!

I did it and it labelled me a Conservative. That's understandable, I suppose, since it appears to use modern definitions of the parties as they act today. The questions did seem a bit simplistic.

I don't have a problem with anybody VOLUNTARILY donating anything! It's their money and their choice. I DO have a problem with parties receiving a couple of bucks of my tax money, just for having received votes! Nobody asked me if I wanted my taxes spent that way. Or anybody else, for that matter. Screw 'em and the horse they rode in on! If a party can't get people to voluntarily donate to them then they don't truly have popular support. Anybody will take something that's free! Something is only truly valued if it has a price! Actually, any party that says that they HAVE to receive automatic tax money strikes me as just a moocher! The CPC tried to get rid of this freebie and I approved of that. If they decided to be like the other guys I would lose respect for them as well. Of course, that might be a moot point, since the CPC are politicians as well and I don't give them a lot of respect either...

As long as they're not armed with those dreaded Baryshnikov rifles! First they distract you by doing a little dance, then KA-POW! They shoot you dead!

I think we need a woman for moderator! I nominate Julie Couillard, the girlfriend of Maxime Bernier, the Troy Quebec MP who was involved in that scandal. Julie is not only a woman but she would also fill the "cleavage" quota, which seems to be sadly under-represented amongst moderators on Canadian TV.

Geez, all those years I spent with the Reform Party and I never once guessed I was an "extreme right fascist"! If only someone had explained it to me!

What have you got against Paikin? Why do you want to discriminate against him? Is it because he's from Hamilton? Or that he's male?

I think part of the confusion in this thread is coming from different definitions of "work". Over the years a lot of folks have been indoctrinated with the old socialist definition that states that all work is the same and is of equal value. In other words, it doesn't matter where the sweat comes from - sweat should be paid! This has given rise to all the arguments about "equal pay for equal work" and innumerable committees trying to equate the hourly wage between a male truck driver and a female secretary. In actual fact, the real definition of work in the private sector is much more clear. Pay is something you give to acquire a product or service. Work is what is involved in making it possible for you to buy that product or service and is irrelevant to the buyer, except for the fact that if there are high costs involved there will be a minimum price that he won't be able to buy below, unless he can find a seller stupid enough to sell under cost. So to a socialist, paying someone to dig a hole to put the dirt from the last hole he had to dig makes perfect sense, even if no one wants the holes! This can happen in government all the time. The government may pay workers to do a task that actually few if any taxpayers would really want, especially if they knew everything about it. Those workers might sweat a LOT in doing that job but in the final analysis, the work is worthless if no one wants the product or service. So if you define a public sector worker's contribution to the tax revenue by how much he sweats at his job that's one thing. If your definition involves if his work results in something that anybody actually WANTS that's quite another! All work is obviously not of equal value. If anybody thinks otherwise, just tell them to pay ME for being their cook!

Maybe yes, maybe no! Studies have shown that the gasoline taxes MORE than pay for the roads! Just ask the CAA! The money goes into "general revenue" for use Lord knows where! The question is to undefined for an easy answer. Yes, public sector workers pay taxes. Still, that money came from OTHER people's taxes! Is it a net gain or loss? Strictly mathematically, it's a loss. In terms of economic contribution, it may not be. That would depend on which SPECIFIC task they do for the economy and the public good! In the private sector that question is never asked. If someone didn't want the product or service that company would not exist and there would be no employees involved. In the public sector, there is the "official" line as to what all those civil servants are doing and there is the reality, which is not always the same. There are a lot of public sector workers doing tasks that are only politically motivated by their political masters, tasks that might not actually have any real benefit or are of benefit but nowhere near being cost-effective when handled by the public sector. As usual, it all DEPENDS!

Your post proves my point about how this issue will play in TROC, Scotty! What's interesting is how quickly Duceppe has seized the issue. He's playing to Quebecers, hoping it will bring him even more seats. It might, but it's starting to look like it will be harder and harder for the Bloc to squeeze concessions out of Ottawa. If the Liberal strategists also decide that Quebec has nothing to offer them then Quebecers will find their option suddenly much more defined. It will be separation or federalism, but NOT separation as a lever for more pork! There's a popular attitude amongst TROC for some "tough love" towards Quebec. Not to have Quebec separate but just not to be "used" by Quebec over the issue. As long as Quebec was still giving federalist parties a reasonable number of seats those parties were not going to acknowledge those sentiments. They want the seats! For the first time, with the drop in Liberal fortunes and the meagre gains of the Tories Quebec is essentially giving the federalist parties NOTHING! Or at least, not much for all the money and effort! If Quebec were to give Harper even 5 MORE seats this election watch how fast his attitude would change! Quebec would become important to his attaining and maintaining his majority! Politicians are like cats. They will ignore you unless you wave a treat under their nose, in which case they will follow you anywhere!

This might surprise you but if you think about it, I'm actually agreeing with you! Harper does suck as a singer and karaoke also sucks! There, I agree with you! However, that's not the point. Any real musician hates karaoke as much as they hated disco back in the 70's. So what? Huge numbers of ordinary people LOVE karaoke! And in this country, they vote! No one expects every amateur singer at a family holiday or a Saturday Nite Pub Singalong to be great! As long as they're adequate the crowd enjoys themselves and loves the performer for trying. Harper was not auditioning for Canadian Idol. He was trying make a connection as an ordinary guy among ordinary people and largely he succeeded. I've noticed a blind spot amongst many of my musician friends over the years. They think that their road to success comes from more and more perfecting of their musical chops, that somehow if they can get over a certain bar of musical technical perfection they will instantly become stars! They self-produce CD after CD, spending small fortunes on the equipment involved and practicing scales till their fingers drop off. Sadly, for most of them it's a futile effort! Perfection of technique only counts in school! To the general public, they don't actually want a great musician as much as they want a good entertainer! A catchy but simple song like the Knack's "My Sharona" sold millions, while costing only $600 to produce, in the days before cheap digital studios. Stompin' Tom sold far more records than Captain Beefheart! Joe Satriani only attracts other musical purists. You can be a musical snob to Harper all you want but meanwhile he's stealing your audience! Don't mistake me, I cringed when I heard him too but I'm objective enough to know a working marketing technique when I see one. It could be worse. Wait till Rae drags out his old original song "We're In the Same Boat Now!" If you haven't already heard it, make sure you have your tv remote in your hand so you can hurriedly switch channels. Otherwise, you will find yourself re-enacting those scenes from the "Airplane!" movies, where some finds himself seated beside someone who is telling such a boring story that the person tries to kill themself to escape hearing it!

I think there's a deeper problem here, August. For decades now, Quebec has benefited from policies of "appeasement". The Liberals and now the Tories have wanted as many Quebec seats as possible so they have often given Quebec more than they might have given another province. It hasn't been as bad as some have made out but it still has happened and like it or not, in TROC that IS the prevailing perception! You can debate if it's true till the cows come home but it doesn't matter. That's the way it IS! Now, Harper has put a lot of work during his term into wooing Quebec. Where has it gotten him? Essentially, nowhere. It would appear that he has even LESS chance at winning more Quebec seats than when he started! It's only to be expected that there would come a day when some party leader would say "Why bother? Is it worth it?" Perhaps this is a turning point. Quebec has played the game too long and too hard and now is in danger of not having anyone to play with! Harper obviously felt that he had a better chance at winning up to 7 seats in Newfoundland than he did in Quebec! If that is true, it only makes sense to ignore Quebec. Besides, supporting Newfoundland on this power project also appeals to Nova Scotia and PEI. Duceppe's indignation might actually HELP with winning seats in other parts of Canada! There have been mutterings here in Ontario, where there are a lot of people who have lost their manufacturing job and can't even find one as a greeter for WalMart, that Quebec gets an unfair share by using the lure of a seat count carrot that the donkey can never reach while threatening to separate. If I were Harper I would have done the same thing, August! Quebec has been the Lucy with Charlie Brown's football. Looks like some Charlie has finally said "Screw you, Lucy! It's just not worth playing with you!" If Quebecers want Harper to believe that they will give him some seats they have to DO it once in a while! Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today!