August1991

Sorry, manif = demo. That one slipped by. (To be precise, demonstration = manifestation.) You know, chanting, slogans, signs, bull-horns. Rather common here.

Harper's not dumb as a plank, he's just boring. Trudeau was never boring. Well, hate to break this to you, but in the grander scheme of things, Canada is boring.

What La Presse got was a home video made for the 50th birthday of the CEO of one of the ad agencies that got a big chunk of the moulah. In the video, we see Coderre cracking jokes about the guy and saying how much the government appreciates his work. Coderre video What's damning is it's familiarity, and Coderre comes across as slightly goofy. This one's going to do the French internet tour.

Interesting article in The Gazette today by Ian Macdonald about leadership voting for the CPC. Ian Macdonald Gazette There are 30800 points on offer which means 15400 to win. There are 9000 members in Quebec (for 7500 points) of which about 5000 members were previous CA/Tories. IOW, Stronach has sold about 3500 new members and about 500 others have joined on the other own. Macdonald claims that Stronach might get as many as 5000 of the 7500 Quebec points. (For comaprison, Harper has about 6400 points from Alta/BC according to Macdonald.) Even using Macdonald's very optimistic Stronach numbers for Quebec, she apparently didn't sell enough memberships to take this puppy out for a walk. Anybody have a reading of Ontario?

Until we get close to an election date, or at least the election is called, the polls are good but far from perfect. As noted above by sir_springer about BC, people don't pay attention until they have to. This is true elsewhere also. Layton is slick and speaks well to an urban crowd, particularly in Ontario but these people won't vote NDP. I think they just won't vote. I don't know what effect he'll have in the west. There are 32 seats in the Maritimes. They'll stay largely Liberal, although the CPC may get a few. The CBC makes a big deal about the NDP, Layton'll be interviewed like the others and this gives the impression they're a contender. But then they finish last. Happens everytime. There are alot of people who voted Liberal last time out in Ontario. These people don't follow politics closely, hear the stories and are upset. What do they do? They're uncomfortable with CPC/Reform and they don't like the NDP. In a poll, they might say Liberal or undecided. Election day comes, I bet they just don't vote.

Denis Coderre, PM's Immigration minister, may be next to get sucked into this whirlpool. La Presse today has him connected to the ad agencies involved when he was sports minister. If this is true, this would get the scandal closer to PM PM.

The CA/Tory split in the last election made it much easier for the Libs in Ontario. Heck, I think they got all 103 in 97. The thing about the NDP in Ontario is that people remember Rae. It'll take a generation to wipe that memory out. In addition, the anti-Liberal vote will realize that an NDP vote is tantamount to voting Liberal because the same gang will stay in power. On the other hand, there's a core Liberal vote that's based on people perceiving it as a National Party. The CPC's French debate today was geared to those voters - not to Quebec at all. I think the CBC by playing the three party deal gives the impression the NDP is bigger than it really is. Quick numbers in Ontario? I'd say that if it's a spring election, 45/45/10 might do.

Good post. It's palpable here in Montreal too. The Libs do well in polls but they win some seats with 92% of the vote so their vote doesn't turn into seats. With Libs in provincially, it's safe to vote BQ, even French federalists, and that's what many will do I reckon. I don't know what the anglos will do. There are many diehard Liberals amongst that gang. I don't see any CPC or NDP seats here, but who knows. Heck, Martin may still pull this one out of the hat. (There's a sense of inevitability to the Liberals in Quebec.)

I get the impression there's alot of NDP wishful thinking going on. It's in the nature of NDP supporters to be young and naive. But the last poll had the Libs at 40% or something in BC. This I don't get at all. Can you explain?

I actually went to this debate in Montreal and sat through the whole thing. Gawd. Trudeau started this crazy bilingualism thing and so I had to listen to two anglophones absolutely massacre the French language. Harper is better than Clement. As leaders go, Trudeau or Levesque would have danced circles around these three. All were visibly nervous at the start, Stronach particularly. (Incidentally she's taller than Clement which is somehow funny.) Harper is well, boring. Now I understand why he hasn't caught on. He is well advised and well organized. And he was the only one that said anything that might have any connection to what anyone in Quebec thinks. (Respect for provincial jurisdiction.) Otherwise these three might have been arguing on Mars. For example, there were several hundred people there. On the streets outside (making traffic a mess) there was a manif for women (8 March) with several thousand. Of course no one said anything about this. News reports covered primarily the manif, not the debate. This party has no connection to Quebec whatsoever. It's as if the BQ parachuted candidates into Alta.

I checked. It was Réal Caouette. But the Créditiste in 1979 was Fabien Roy, from the Beauce. (Accents are important in French.)

Ah geez, Galahad, you went and ruined it by explaining the punch line. "See, Bush will pick the ex-Mayor of NY and get rid of the fat, bald guy with the lesbian daughter because, you know, the mayor guy is really popular after what happened in New York." Personally, I was more intrigued by the Condi Rice scenario.

More salvos in what appears to be a Liberal Civil War. An ill wind blows no good and it's always better to have them inside peeing out etc. etc. More pertinently, the Liberals have relied on their seeming "professionalism" compared to all the other amateurs. Well, now the Liberals look the amateurs. You can read Pelletier's whole letter in today's Globe: Pelletier in G&MAnd then on CTV, we've got a Gagliano interview: Gagliano CTV The best of all though is Margaret Wente's column in the Globe & Mail today about Stevie Cameron. Wente G&M I heard Sheila Copps quoted as saying there is a divide between the "Social Liberals" and the "Financial Liberals". Copps is a Liberal's Liberal and Liberals never say such things. It's the Tories that tear themselves apart. All of this dirty laundry is coming out in the most amateurish, bungled manner. Student council politics are more sophisticated.

In 1980, MacEachan realized that Clark had no contacts with the Creditistes and MacEachan also knew that he could get Trudeau to come back. Clark's government fell because the six Creditistes sat out the vote. (All six lost their seats in the 1980 election.) BTW, I suspect Clark felt he could pull a Diefenbaker and turn a minority into a majority. Why is this relevant? Because no formal coalition is necessary. Just careful discussions, and the basic fact that politicians fear elections. The Liberals have traditionally been good at managing such.

That does sound arrogant, and also purely arbitrary and subjective. Are you sure that you have the good taste to recognize good taste?A minor point: art, like knowledge itself, become common goods available to all. We have a much vaster choice of art to choose from than people alive 500 years ago, and think how much more people alive in 500 years will have. Moreover, art is a luxury. People in the future will be wealthier and hence will consume more art. Anyone. I believe AOL-Time Warner shares are at $17.15 right now, they trade under the ticker symbol "TWX" on the NYSE. Or you could get some shares in Fox Entertainment, which are a lot pricer at $28.99 per share. Take your pick.Delightful response! To avoid a semantic argument, I'll accept your point but I cringe at the word "system" and any -ism. Too often, these words mask the actions of individuals and represent lazy thinking by generalization. I read recently about a small counting device found in Belgium (of all places) that dates from 8000 BC. This would have been an extremely simple abacus. Incidentally, the earliest writing (in the 3000 BC era as you note) concerned primarily accounts and inventories. I don't think there is any doubt that co-operation achieves much more than competition. Unfortunately, co-operation suffers from the fatal flaw of cheating (self-interested behaviour). One can easily see that families and clans exist to overcome this problem. Moreover, if someone helps their family, this is tantamount to selfish behaviour. But Hugo, Smith did not argue that private greed led to public virtue because people wanted to help their families by working hard and accumulating wealth. Smith's key insight was that society benefits most when a family (or individual) chooses the best trade on offer. In other words, the collective good is greatest (and individuals co-operate completely) when individuals choose the best for themselves - surely a cheat-proof objective. To be able to make this choice, market prices are critical. I find remarkable that several thousand years ago - 5000 years ago according to you - people discovered a way to obtain co-operation that withstood cheating. That is, they discovered market relations. If we consider that humans have existed for several million years, then 5000 years is a mere instant.

This scandal won't die. Martin sounds more and more like Nixon: "Investigators will get to the bottom of this. This was an isolated incident. A third rate burglary. I want everything exposed. I have told everyone to come forward and tell the truth. I have told the investigators to do the best they can." Then, "Canada has to make big decisions. We have a big agenda." Then. "You always ask me these questions. You should stop thinking about this. Two months of Sponsorship questions is enough. Canadians want to know about our future." Then, "I profited in no way. I'm not a crook." Then? Well, we don't have executive privilege. Instead, we have the Canadian "eh?".

Background quotes from previous posts: To be 'The Man', to stay "in the bubble", Bush needs every vote he can get, buy, manipulate. I simply don't see how he'll get these votes by encouraging a coup, 'regime change' in Haiti. The Jeffrey Sachs article(s). Wow! Did you notice how non-Americans blame America for the situation in Haiti? (I suspect you're not American BlackDog and you were at pains to explain that it's the US government, not Bush, organising the coup in Haiti.) Sachs, on the other hand, as an American, blames Bush. Of course, Sachs can't blame America because then Sachs would be, well, unAmerican. All of this has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with Bush and America. The first Sachs' article I saw criticised the Bush Jr. Administration because it cut aid to the Aristide government but said nothing about arming rebels... (IOW, I decide no longer to give money to a beggar on my street. The impoverished beggar now falls into dire poverty. This is my fault?) The next Sachs article I read (BlackDog, thanks for the link to the LA Times article) suggests by question only that the US supplied weapons to the rebels. Gawd knows. Sachs? a) Sachs with his big ego and penetrating wisdom (have you ever met him?) is really angry that he met Aristide recently, decided Aristide had popular support and then watched when Haitians got rid of Aristide or b ) Sachs really hates this Bush Administration and realises this is a way to make Bush look like an amateur in Foreign Policy, the only thing Bush has to get re-elected. (Advice to Bush-haters? The key Kerry question: Have these past four years made you better off? What about the four years before that? Now, think and make your choice - Democrat or Republican.) My final idea about the tragedy of Haiti? Have you ever read the novel "The Comedians" by Graham Greene? Greene was no American apologist. Read his book and then we'll post comments about Haiti - not about Bush, the US government, or America.

This approach to history is precisely Marxist (or Hegelian) and it is based on the idea that society has 'progressed' through various stages culminating in capitalism. (Marx thought the next stage was communism or socialism or something.) IMHO, he and Hegel were dead wrong. There are no stages to history. History just happens. At most, over time, we have developed new technology based on a better understanding of the universe around us. In my view, one of the most significant social developments was the invention of numbers because it meant we could use prices to trade. This was done perhaps as long ago as 10,000 years or so. Humans as a species really began to dominate then because we could co-operate anonymously. But Hugo, I really don't see this 'Idea of Progress' as a major difference between you and me. Instead, I think we have a bigger bone of contention. Let me show you one of the most famous quotes of Adam Smith: The idea is plain. Market relations work because people are encouraged to be greedy (self-love) and act in their own self-interest (their advantages), yet in doing so, they produce co-operation for all. IOW, Smith identified how prices in a market accomplish co-operation by encouraging private greed. Unfortunately, many still find this confusing. (Perhaps because it's contrary to Christian dogma. The film 'A Beautiful Mind', following Hollywood dogma, misrepresented the idea too.) (BTW, bakers and butchers have existed for thousands of years but the Scot Smith -aided by the Enlightenment- was the first to examine anything so mundane as why butchers do what they do.) 'Capitalism'? To me, this is merely the idea that if I own something, I can trade it temporarily (lend it) and receive compensation while I manage without the thing I'm lending. (Today, this is 'leasing' which still confuses some people.) IOW, capitalism is one obvious extension of market relations. More modern examples are contingency markets such as options (insurance and reservation schemes) and futures markets. In all these examples, a market relation, with a price, is the key idea. I'm sure the future will find more applications. Now then, 'democratic capitalism'? To me, democracy is a way of organising a political entity in society. Protected property rights are a critical feature to have functioning market relations (capitalism if you prefer). Democracy tends best to protect property rights. Other forms of government seem to allow too easily arbitrary seizure, and insecure property definition. Hugo, you seem to be from eastern Europe. If this is true, you should understand well the importance of secure property rights for a society to benefit from market relations. If what I own can be taken at any moment, then I only trade with people I trust absolutely. I think you and I are saying the same thing using different words. (But geez, you make me think!) We seem to disagree most about 'morality' and the role of self-interest in markets (capitalism). Sorry for this long post, but you are wordy too.

A Parliament with Svend is a good Parliament, in my view. Why? Any financial advisor will say that it's best to diversify. That's my starting point, but I'll explain further some time. (Would I vote for Svend? Probably not, but depending on the riding candidates...)

Yeah, right. Fanatic Alliance (AF) , or the Alliance Française (AF), please be honest. Are you French? In general, the Canadians I know are open-minded people. They vote Tory, NDP and Liberal. (True... many vote Liberal. Your comment about voting NDP is silly. But true, Canadians are generally happy. Are they gay?)

As ugly as the name is for the Tories, this thread is a good one. The modern issue in Western countries (US, France, UK, Canada) is social liberal/conservative and fiscal liberal/conservative. The sixties leftists have mixed up the word "progressive" with these splits confusing everyone. And in Canada, there's more confusion: we have the anti-Liberal party. The amalgamated CPC is fiscally conservative. Where the problem arises is whether the CPC is socially liberal or socially conservative. In this, the CPC is on the cutting edge of modern western debate. Fundamentally, 'What is freedom?' (For the moment, the CPC leadership candidates seem to be hiding behind the idea of 'parliamentary free votes' and such to stake their 'social' position.) The sixties, progressive NDP? Fiscally liberal (steal from the rich) and socially liberal (anything goes). Voters in Western countries are starting to wonder what all this means exactly. I don't think voters will be conned anymore by the idea that higher taxes and social freedom are 'progressive'. Stronach? If she wins, the anti-Liberal will vote will go - geez, where will it go? Bloc? NDP? Green? Nader?

I'm going to change the name of this thread to either "LPC - NDP - CPC Showing Strength" or else "Federal Election 2004". The current name is too biased. If the GG's writ is dropped 4 April, what election date do we have? And what about the Broadbent byelection? (I think the rule is that byelections can be called but then get cancelled if a writ is dropped. What's the latest date for the byelection?) What the...? When we have an election at the same time as the Americans, does this favour the Libs or Tories? 68, 84. More pointedly (and thinking of Layton), Chretien - the Trudeau wannabe - managed well one piece of his mentor's advice. 'Canadians don't like a leader who kowtows to the Americans'. I suspect Nader would only hurt any party he tried to help, and I think a concurrent US election involving Bush will favour Layton over Martin, and let's say - hmmm - Harper. Overall, I agree MapleSyrup. These are interesting times and this one will be more interesting than the last several. Geez, maybe as good as 1979. Last Point: In Lapresse today, nothing about 'Le Scandale' except a column by Pierre Foglia. Know him? If not, he's the more intelligent, more sophisticated, less clueless Toronto Star 'Stringer' of Quebec (what a comparison - sorry, the best I can do.) The column is absolutely damning - in a smart, simple way - of Martin and federal Liberals.

$$$$$.

Where do I begin? What gives you - or a preacher - the right to believe people should be changed? In your mind, what is freedom ? What gives you the moral authority to judge how other people choose to spend their time or conduct their lives? No one forces anyone to work 80 hour weeks or drive SUVs. When you say 'freedom', what do you mean? When was democratic capitalism young? In the 18th century of Adam Smith and Ben Franklin? Sorry, I don't fall for that Marxist 'stages' claptrap of 'feudalism, capitalism, socialism'. What you all call 'democratic capitalism', I would simply call market relations. By a market, I mean people voluntarily trading using prices to find the best terms of trade (deal). [i sometimes think that we in Western countries are so familiar with this that we can barely imagine a world without it. Adam Smith did not invent it. He was simply the first to observe something that had been happening for several thousand years.] So, what is a world without markets? A world of competition and co-operation. Co-operation is always better for the collective but competition is sometimes best for the individual. (Example: Let's work together to hunt an animal. Now that we've killed the animal, I fight you to get the whole animal.) People fighting over the prize of a dead animal is not good for any society (but it is dramatic to watch!). It is better to encourage people to renounce greed and share (boring but honourable). A good example of co-operation is marriage, family and belonging to a clan. Now, into this world, we introduce a market with prices. We tell people to be greedy: Seek the best deal for yourself. The buyers go looking for the lowest price, the sellers for the highest price - they are all competing - but the result is good! They co-operate perfectly! This radical change to human relations is still confusing people. With this said, I really enjoy reading your comments. Don't stop this thread! I too prefer co-operation to competition, charity to wilful harm - and I would be the first to admit I am often wrong. I enjoy thoughtful discussions because I have learned too many times that I should change my opinion!

BD and MapleSyrup, I agree with you both. I think the Senate should be abolished, and electoral reform would do democracy in Canada well. In fact, the Charest government just tabled a proposal to have 75 seats by fptp and 50 by party list in the Quebec's National Assembly. (And immediately, the Quebec nationalists started to argue.) Any reform of the Senate, and serious federal electoral reform, would require a constitutional amendment. That's not going to happen. Why? Because as soon as you say "constitution", you open a can of worms - and the arguments never end. To amend a country's constitution should be difficult, but not impossible. Until something changes, it is impossible to amend Canada's constitution. This is one indication that Canada is not normal country.