Wild Bill

You may not like Harper but he is still a politician, not a total idiot. He would have to be brain dead to fit into your argument. I'm way too Libertarian to ever support censorship but I agree with him on denial of tax credits for some films. Actually, I'm not to keen on tax credits for ANY films but I understand its a real world and we have to compete with other countries to attract the business! Anyhow, I've personally witnessed how with many such grant programs our government hands out OUR tax dollars willy-nilly, both to gems and to crap! I understand art is in the beholder but still, there is such a thing as a lowest common denominator and let's face it, many films that receive grants fall FAR below even that standard! This has been the perpetual problem of government grants for ANY piece of art! Because of the difficulty in deciding what is actually art and has merit we give thousands of dollars for dog crap pinned to a picture of the Pope, or some such drivel. A step towards censorship? Give me a break! You're really stretching here! As for 6 months for one plant, I don't believe that the Tories are serious. There's too many "cosmic cowboys" in the West and in the Tory party who would see the inanity in such a provision. I believe this is just an old tried and true tactic when initiating a Bill that might have problems being passed. You deliberately insert a clause or two that you don't expect anyone to ever accept! It gives you something to take back when the Bill is up for debate or revision. The Opposition can crow that they forced changes to improve the Bill and you got what you wanted anyway! This trick is much older than Harper. The Liberals used it many times. I think it was invented by Moses but I'm not sure...

"Because that is how a MINORITY government is supposed to work you twit!" Jdobbin, remember what I said about these threads getting more civilized? I take it back! We're losing.

Let me put it more plainly for you, Stephen: Does the fact that a party platform may be for more "fringe" type values make it much harder to raise money? Would people shell out more easily for a new Reform Party than for a Christian Heritage Party or a "Save the Unborn Baby Whales from Drunk Drivers and Abortionists" type party? Surely you don't maintain that the appeal of ANY new party is equal!

Are those days really completely gone? Or is it more a question of WHO is asking for the money? I witnessed a LOT of very ordinary folks donating several hundred dollars each year to my Reform riding. Reform was closer to mainstream values than perhaps some of the other parties that also tried to become established. It was much easier to get money to force more representation in Ottawa and an end to deficit spending than to demand that sealers stop sealing or that marijuana be legalized. As for "angels" who provide seed money, again I think there are a LOT more of those around today than you might think. Again, it all depends on how mainstream is your political platform.

McVety is doomed to disappointment! If Harper achieves a majority the LAST thing he would ever do would be to enact policies that would please McVety. If he did, he would get maybe a few thousand votes from McVety's followers. And that would be all he would ever get. The most McVety could hope for would be a LITTLE bit of drift towards SOME of the values they hold in common, as long as it was ONLY a little and would not cost the government any votes at the next election. Why people like McVety keep thinking that their heroes would cheerfully commit suicide just to please the few of them is beyond me.

Your experience might give you a better perspective on the new laws, Stephen. I admit I'm not up on them other than what I've gleaned from the media. My gleanings gave me the impression that the new laws require parties to depend far more on smaller personal donations and much less on large corporate or lobby group ones. Is this untrue? Reform built its huge election war chests almost entirely by passing a KFC bucket at public meetings and by individual membership/donation drives. The new Tories have inherited that legacy. They receive very little in comparison to corporate donations. The Liberals of course relied on those big corporate cheques for generations and have almost no "grassroots" base of funding at all, which is perhaps the main reason they are in such dire financial straits at the moment. Is my impression mistaken? Do the new laws work in a different manner? I'd appreciate the "edification"!

Hey jdobbin! Have you noticed that by apologizing when we're misunderstood and trying to be a bit more respectful we appear to have successfully made things more civilized on this board? Or at least in this thread! Manners CAN set an example! We'll "civilize" the rest of these folks yet!

Not at all! They should just stop being Liberals! Vive les molsons! Pas de Mauditz bierre! Vive le Chambly!

Ah Stephan, you're making my point for me! "...unless those people are willing to organize and take overt action." That's what happened with the Reform movement! That's what can happen again. The key point to lobbyists is that they should not assume that because the "silent majority" appears to be sleeping they should never have to consider that someday it might wake up. Or if it did wake up, it might have a negative opinion of ALL lobby groups! I don't know if you've noticed but there has been a noticeable change in public attitudes towards some sacred cows of even a decade ago. Many folks are championing the sealers and not the seals in Newfoundland. Greenpeace is considered by some to be more of a kneejerk religious movement than one founded on good eco-science. People are daring not just to wear fur again but...seal fur! The NDP has been shrinking these last few elections. Not all of its support has gone to the Greens, either. Even the idea of Dion's NewGST and the carbon tax looks like a non-starter. 10 years ago I'd have bet that it would have been enthusiastically supported. Now it looks like most people think that "saving the planet" means taxed until they can't afford their mortgage or groceries. Not everywhere of course and not 100% but still, trends have grown that are the direct result of the success of many lobby groups. You can argue about whether it's fair to blame this or that group but it doesn't matter. It's a perception and is not preception one of the core factors of politics? It's too easy to go for the quick score in front of your nose. That shortsightedness is why countries like Japan blew old-fashioned American companies out of the water with cars and electronics. Any pool player knows it's not just sinking the shot. It's leaving shape on the ball for the next one! I think a lot of today's lobbyists would do well to practice some pool.

I would agree with you Stephen that lobby groups have become very adept at playing the system. I've been watching for years as a small minority here and there will achieve their ends. Particularly with Liberal governments, who are masters at the art of brokerage politics. That being said, I've been struck by the fact that whenever I talk to someone from such groups they are rightfully proud of their successes but blissfully unaware of any collateral effects. I would submit that their very success has incubated a rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority. Certainly it has resulted in a huge increase in apathy and cynicism towards politics. Those that aren't capable, inclined or in a position to play the brokerage and lobby game feel that governments respond to the tail and not the whole dog. If you're not part of the tail then no one cares about your values and how you feel about issues. So why vote at all? Why trust ANY politician? From Elizabeth May to Jesus Christ. We are primed for backlashes. Look at how the Reform Party grew. It doesn't matter if they were your own preference or not. They came from nowhere and in a decade were not only the Opposition but came close to being the government. I submit that their success was partially a result of a backlash against the system you espouse. The PC's may have successfully taken them over and negated the populist portion of their movement but that doesn't mean that all those Canadians have changed how they feel. So yes, you may have an accurate picture of "the way things work". You just may not have considered that things change and sometimes actions promote effects. Sometimes, although we may not have realized it, we get what we asked for...

Well, I have a few problems with YOUR argument! You seem to be saying that 'fixed election dates is the law - Harper's own law! He should not have the power to bring down his own government. However, it would be okay for the OPPOSITION to force an early election! Why Why? 'Cuz Harper is a bad man and I don't like him!" When you said "I guess when they make the rules for us Canadians they don't worry about it at all knowing the law doesn't really apply to all of us equally." you included everybody BUT Harper! Oh well, I guess if he's a "bad man" then of course he should not have equal treatment under the law...

Reality? Maybe. Whatever happened to this modern idea of 'consensus', where if a majority of 'scientists' believe in global warming then it must be true? Nanos is outside the consensus. I guess for some it's all in what you believe in the first place. That being said, you may indeed be citing a more accurate poll. The will of the people is what it is and it doesn't matter a damn about a poll. Polls are mere snapshots and indicators, after all. A betting man would use them and over the years he would consistently make money but he would never be so foolish as to expect to be right every time. Just out of curiosity, was 2006 the only time Nanos was so accurate? The reason I ask is that mathematically one or two instances is called 'blind luck'. It's like the probabilities of coin tossing. Just because a coin came up heads 3 times in a row means squat as to the chances of it being heads on the next toss. Coin tosses have no memory, as the math wizards say. Every time you toss it's 50:50, regardless if you were on a streak or whatever. If Nanos has a history of being more accurate than all the other guys then I would agree that they seem to be better at their methodology than the other guys. Anyhow, the 'reality' will be the election itself. Our wishes are meaningless, including mine. I've always suspected that when those seers analyzed chicken entrails to tell someone's fortune they were really just conning the guy out of a free lunch!

My apologies!

I too admire his spunk but I think it would be a dumb move for him to try to run for PM. Danny's attitudes during his fights with Ottawa and many of the things he said have alienated him from many in the rest of Canada. He's the man for Newfoundland but he's ticked off too many folks off the rock to ever have a chance at leading the nation. Some of the things he's said about Ontario would make it very unlikely he'd get many votes there.

Gosh darn it, Angus! Do we have to declare the thread ended now?

Ah, Stephen! Your post is an example of what I was talking about when I wrote about different ways of thinking. You just blew off Moonbox's logical and "real world" analysis of why Harper did what he did with a rant about your impression of Harper's character. Now, your impression could possibly be correct! I don't think so myself but hey, I'm not in a position to know for sure. Even so, Moonbox argues from logic and evidence instead of emotional impressions. Again, I'm not saying which manner of thinking works better. Just that if you want to convince a "head" person to agree with you then you shouldn't put all your effort into an appeal from the "heart". This is also what I've observed over the years from many advocates of "left wing" causes. They tend to think that because when they preach to their own choir their argument is readily believed that any other choir will be just as receptive. Perhaps the present day estrangement between left and right is an indication that the balance of power in our society has gotten seriously out of whack. We need each other to have a truly progressive society. For the past few decades modern liberalism has had the upper hand in Canada. This has led to some successes but also left us with many things that just don't work, like health care that's going broke and leaving people on gurneys in hospital hallways. Oh well, perhaps if I ran as the leader of the "Fat Angry Rocknroll Techie" party I could fix everything in a weekend or two...

Isn't Decima the one that all the journalists and politicos always joke about always being wrong?

Now, now! Don't get all bent out of shape because your WISHES aren't proving true! Our own preferences and those of the majority of our fellow citizens can often be quite different. That doesn't mean there are crooked bribes or polls happening. It just means that you didn't read your fellow citizens' feelings accurately. It's called being objective. The fact that we had a change is not surprising. That always happens! Between elections polls always stay kinda flat and boring. People just don't care that much! When it looks like an election is close and especially when it is actually called people tend to wake up and pay attention. It's easy to say you don't like one leader or party. It's quite another to decide to vote against him when you have to consider your alternatives. So a poll will show a sudden increase or decrease in one or another's popularity at that time, when it might have stayed relatively flat for months. That's the reason I always smile at those who get all hung up at polls in the months between elections. They don't really show a lot! Again, because most people are NOT political junkies like us! They have a life and they don't want to waste a lot of energy on politics at times when they can't do anything about it. What IS surprising is the big "catch up" of the Tories, especially in Quebec. This clearly shows momentum! Perhaps that's why jdobbin didn't show that part in his post. The increase for the Tories shows that Dion just hasn't inspired many Canadians. In fact, he's lost a lot of ground. To be fair, he's in an impossible position. He was always expected to be a "caretaker" leader. The smart Liberals never expected to win the next election, so soon after all the baggage from the Martin term. When Dion loses he will promptly be tossed out at the December Liberal leadership convention. Big guns like Rae and Iggy will start to play for real. Some others might come out of the woodwork as well. Dion's loss will have put enough distance and time from the baggage that it will all sink out of sight with his memory. The new Liberal leader will have a fresh start. Harper's crew will have been in office long enough that maybe Canadians will be getting tired of him. The NEXT election will be the important one! Meanwhile, I'm wondering if all these predictions of this election being a waste of time for returning another Tory minority are wrong. If this poll is at all accurate and there is that kind of momentum going on then Harper may be heading for a majority. If so, I'm not certain if it's because he's impressed us all so much or if Dion has just failed to look like a better alternative. Still, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. I may turn out to be "full of it" but I guarantee I won't lack company on this board!

Okay! Let me put it simpler! In theory, every vote counts. In practice, it doesn't. If it doesn't, who or what is served by going through the motions? Again, I'm a techie. I believe that if you drop something it falls at 30metres/sec/sec. A volt will shove an amp through an ohm. The cheque is NOT in the mail! And NEVER try to fill an inside straight! If you want to convince me that a vote for an independent or a Libertarian is anything more than a token then you would need to use math or give me recent historical examples of where such a candidate actually got voted in AND made the difference on a bill of substance! Please don't try to use Chuck Cadman. He was a Reformer who fell victim to a nomination dirty trick and wound up winning the seat anyway. At heart he was still a Reformer, as proven by his actions in voting according to his constituents wishes. What else have you got?

Stephen, I checked out your site and congratulate you on your accomplishments. Now for the "but"! Please don't take this as personal criticism! I would simply like to point out that everything you mentioned of your background and what you have done falls under the "artistic" umbrella. There is nothing wrong with that per se but I would submit that it skews your perspective. I found your credentials to be impressive but totally one-sided! Where are the maths and hard sciences? The background of "cause and effect" and "how will the damn thing actually work?" I'm starting to believe that there is a very broad difference in how we human beings think, between those of us who are "intuitive and artistic" and those who are more mathematical and "scientific thinking" in our perspective on reality. "Artsy" and "engineer", if you like. In an ideal society we would have more teamwork. Artsies tend to make more beautiful bridges, that can fall down. Engineers make safer bridges that may be unintentionally ugly. Politics is an area where many of us have come to believe the balance has gotten dangerously out of whack. The "liberal" (for lack of a better word) approach tends to take resources for granted, including the citizen's ability to be taxed. They seem to think everything is just a matter of will, leadership and achieving consensus. The other side thinks first about what the cost will really be and weighs it against the likelihood of a sufficiently positive outcome. The reason why so many "rightwingers" dismiss the lib/left as "flakes" is because they find it hard to respect views that to them seem obviously impractical. A liberal might cry "But this is important!" His rival might reply "So what? It can't work!" Or at least, not by the method the liberal had proposed. Again, I mean this NOT as a personal criticism but merely as an observation about how different schools of political supporters actually THINK! I offer no blanket value-judgement as it depends on each specific situation as to which is the most appropriate philosophy. I just want to point out a possible reason why it can seem to be such a challenge to persuade others to one's point of view. As any salesman knows, you have to understand your target market. If you don't, you're wasting your time. A successful politician understands this in his bones. That is the reason I feel Dion is going to lose more than Harper this coming election.

If you are suggesting that a vote for a contending party in a riding where one party is heavily favoured is equivalent to voting for an independent or a fringe candidate then I would seriously question your perspective. There is a big difference between "one in a thousand" and "one in a quintillion". When I look in a dictionary for the word "academic" I would expect to see a quote of your post. If I took your advice I could have a better chance of a lottery ticket - and only on the grand prize! However, all is not gloom and doom. A spokesman for the band ABBA has announced that despite the success of the movie/musical "Mama Mia" the band has no intentions of a reunion tour. As long as Disco stays dead I can handle almost anything!

I can understand your reasoning, given your own experience. Still, what bothers me is the ruthless party solidarity practiced by ALL the parties today! Reform was the only party to want to change that, or even mention it as a problem, for that matter! That's another party plank that the new Tories couldn't shove down the orwellian memory hole fast enought after their merger with the PC's. Such solidarity really makes MP's into trained seals. They are not going to vote for their consituents first. They are going to vote for their party whip first! If these goals ever come into conflict the MP will be able to nothing for his own riding. As proof I cite the riding of Haldimand-Brant, which encompasses the city of Caledonia. An entire city has been thrown to the wolves over a native protest, both by the provincial Liberals AND the federal Tories! If Dianne Findley survives I will be totally amazed. Talk to anyone on the street in that riding and the overwhelming consensus is that she is toast! Which is a bit of a pity, since otherwise she hasn't done a bad job! That's all on the national front, however. She has done little or nothing to help her own riding's people.

There's that tired old academic suggestion again! What earthly practical good would that do? Perhaps I should go tilt at windmills instead. Voting for a choice that could never, ever be elected might satisfy my sense of civic duty. It might also help pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes, as far as pretending our "system" works. However, as I keep saying, I'm a techie sort of guy. I only care to spend effort for a positive result. If I make an action that has no noticeable effect, why should I have bothered?

Forgive me, but are you not essentially trying to refute good points with: "I know you are but what am I?" I used to use this tactic when I was a child. My mother would accuse me of doing something and I would try to divert her by pointing out something one of my brothers had done, hoping she would forget about my own actions. It did work on occasion but only once in a while. It also cost me support from my brothers that later I could have used.

Oh, well! Indeed! That makes it COMPLETELY a different story! How could anyone have thought otherwise! Mea culpa!