August1991

Both the CBC and the Toronto Star seemed to make a big deal of this poll. The Liberals would obviously prefer to face Stronach (as Bush would have preferred to face Dean). To me, Stronach is the ponzi investment scheme that blows up. I have a separate question though. Why the ambivalence about Harper?

Can we all get this one back on the main track? (The original thread was "Can we all agree this guy needs to get fired?") Well, the GUY was fired. And as I walked into my local Provigo to buy a loaf of bread this evening, the front page of the neighbourhood paper (publication date a couple of days ago) had a photo of Jean Lapierre and the quote "No Settling of Accounts". So, what's going on? What kind of person in Quebec will now sacrifice anything for the federal Liberal Party if it means you might get hung out to dry? Note to Galahad: If our PM answered ANY question from a journalist involving the phrase "Mr. August 1991", then our country is in much more serious trouble than I ever imagined.

I meant "extreme" in the sense that my argument implied the sole reason governments lose power is because they defeat themselves. In Canada, that seems often to be the case. [i have always felt that Americans vote with their wallets. If life is good, the outgoing party gets re-elected. In the US, the correlation of GDP growth, unemployment, inflation to incumbent party votes is high.] Mugabe does not face election. Chretien did three times, and wanted to face a fourth (which I suspect he would have won - and believe me, I am no Chretien apologist). [Are you really comparing Mugabe and Chretien?]

That is the condescending argument of the American left. Ordinary people are being manipulated. I form my opinions the same way I suspect you do: using the brain God gave me. Paul Martin seemed to be good as a Finance Minister. Now that he's PM, there's something wrong with the picture. It's not that he's an activist, we've had that before. (Trudeau and Mulroney were both activists.) Rather, it's the way Martin chose to handle this scandal. (I think his advisors have been reigning him of late.) From a cynical Liberal viewpoint, the Liberals wouldn't be in this mess if Chretien were still PM. So, is Martin a non-Liberal?

Hugo, I think you and I largely agree. We're just using different words. Property law is concerned with the definition of what I own and the enforcement of that definition. When you note: I think you mean that. I would add contract law because then it would be possible to trade. True, people are self-aware (that is, they learn and change). And true, they will always compete. But, it is possible to get them to co-operate honestly. That's what capitalism does. People compete on price and in the process, they wind up co-operating. And the price keeps them honest too. This last comment made me laugh. Of course it can grow (although people competing for a prize rarely believe that since they usually want to get it first). But let me carry your idea further. Life is not a sports match with one prize to be won. But that means also that laws are not like the rules of a sports game, and the role of judges is not like a sports referee.

I know this is a common thought outside of Quebec, particularly in the West. But it somehow assumes Quebec is one person who is negotiating strategically. Individuals might vote strategically but a society cannot. Rational individuals do not add up to a rational society. Rather, some people in Quebec are convinced separatists. (They desperately want out.) Others are convinced federalists. (They are determined to stay in.) Unfortunately, neither side has a convincing majority and until one side does, this will never end. (Do you have any idea what kind of arguments this leads to?) Astute? No astute person would be in this situation of indecision. (I meant the comment differently though. French Quebecers are a minority in North America and for the most part, they don't understand what everyone else is saying. They're not in the loop.) The separatist take on this scandal comes from Parizeau's comment on the night of the 1995 referendum. Money. To a separatist, the scandal is about using federal money to put Canadian flags on posters. The fact that it was done so incompetently is icing on the cake.

I am not certain that it's his desire to be active that makes Martin different. (We've had activist, popular PMs before.) But somehow he has handled this whole scandal badly. The result is that his government may well be defeated. And to win, the opposition merely has to show up. I realise this is a simplistic, extreme view but it's not far from the truth

This was not on the front page, above the fold of La Presse's Saturday paper. I looked. (Thanks for the post. I don't buy papers but I'll buy the Sunday edition.) Enfin, un sondage qui a du sens! CROP is credible. IMO, the key is the Ontario reaction. There are many Ontario voters - forget the WASP stereotype - who simply want a good, safe, happy, no-problem country. They believe the Liberal Party will give them this. They are busy with life and they don't read newspapers. If they learn that the Liberals do not have a majority in Quebec, they may listen.

You got me: Stooges? There were three: Larry, Curly, Moe. Harpo? That's the wigged, womanizer Marx. There were four Marxes. (Maybe a fifth.) What do you mean? Stooge, womanizer or Marks? IOW, please explain to me Gordon Campbell, Hawaii, police photo, Nick Nolte, good fun. (Sorry, my Eastern view.) People in Quebec astute? They're clueless! Swedes on a huge continent of German/Spanish marriages. Please explain why you believe they're astute.

To my dear Sir Riff: If there is a prize, people will compete to win the prize. Capitalism is the wonderful human attempt to turn this competitive race into a productive form of cooperation. How? It involves math - prices or numbers if you will. Bad at math? I'll keep this simple: You win if you offer the best price. Race to the bottom? Imagine!

Honest? I wasn't thinking of Harper. Manning, Klein, Harris were the three I thought of. Of the three, Manning had the guts to attempt it. I think the other two knew otherwise. I don't think Harper has anything special. Rather, I suspect Martin is going to defeat the Liberals. When this happens, Harper will be the Tory leader and he'll get to be PM. Chance. (True, maybe I'm wrong.) Oppositions don't win, governments defeat themselves. At most, an opposition can encourage a government to defeat itself. I understand the idea of offering a credible alternative, as I understand the idea that people are deluded. But that's all CBC speak to my ear. Consider the left view of Bush Jr. - offer an electable alternative (Kerry) and/or wake the masses up! If Bush Jr. loses, it will be because many Americans think, well, he's not a good leader.

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again. Capitalism only requires property law, and maybe a basic contract law. (Ethics have nothing to do with it.) In the past several thousand years or so, property law has been the bugbear in my opinion. I reckon domesticated dogs played a big role in northern climates. Mathematics elsewhere. Look, as soon as there is a prize, there will be guys who will want to fight over it. Why? To be top dog, or get the blonde chick in the corner to look. But cooperation is always better. People achieve much more when they work together. Happy families are the best example. Good government too. Another example? If I 'own' the prize and to get it, you have to compete on terms of trade (price, number), your efforts produce something other than dead guys fighting over the blonde. Same story as competition, but with math this time - and property law. (I'm sure we'll manage contract law). Result? Competition is now cooperation.

To Galahad: Opposition parties rarely win elections. Governments usually lose them. The whole point of democracy, as far as I can figure, is that it offers a peaceful way to throw the buggers out. Chretien was an extremely underrated guy in my opinion. That was part of the secret to his success. Other parts? He was a 'big picture' Ronald Reagan manager. He stone-walled. He always cleared his desk at the end of the day. He liked crowds. Seadoo didn't lose in 2000, I figure Canadians didn't really want to toss Chretien out. Martin though is a different story. Proof? Admit it. If Chretien had stayed on, the Liberals wouldn't be in this mess. Absolute non-starters. None of these three would get a seat in Quebec. And since everyone would know this, that would mean losing another 50 or seats in Ontario. End of PM aspirations. Klein and Harris know this, I suspect.

The poll made front page news on the Toronto Star's Saturday edition. It is easy to imagine that a polling firm would twist the publicised results a little to satisfy certain clients. Who knows? Am I wrong to say that I don't believe that, with all the news known by 22 February, 47% of Ontarians still support the Liberals. Maybe I don't understand Ontario anymore. (I simply don't understand the Lib 44 vs CPC 27 in BC. Can anyone explain this to me?)

Fire Pelletier and you fire the Liberal Party. His resume is here: Pelletier bio He was Mayor of Quebec City for 12 years (77-89) and played well the divide between federalists/separatists (always a problem for municipal politicians). He was Chretien's CoS while still in opposition. I don't believe Pelletier (nor Ouellet, for another example) will accept to wreck his reputation to save the Liberal Party. Now, why is Pelletier behaving this way? Is he losing it under the pressure of the past few days? Or is It simple arrogance, as was the case apparently with Radwanski. (Radwanski, another typical Liberal. Toronto Star editor, Trudeau hagiographer.) How is it that many people still believe the Liberals are competent public managers who defend us against the incompetent, amateur Reform whackos? This blind public support encourages these guys to believe they are invincible. If they don't get tossed out in the next election, they will truly believe that they can get away with anything.

Galahad, we seem to be the sole posters who make this discussion. (Well, thank you maplesyrup and the Lethbridge organizers.) IOW, even if there are few replies, I look at the number of 'Views' . (More likely, living in big city Montreal, I look at the French newspaper headlines. Today? Harper, coalition, mygawd.) Then again, and for a final look, I believe all is truly irrelevant. Ephemeral? Allow me three points. 1. I flipped through that book two years or so ago. I thought, "It's not 'No Holds Barred'. Manning's got an agenda. I'm not giving him my money." Because of your comment, I'll buy and read. (In Montreal, that's possible.) 2. In modern times, THERE IS NO HONEST EQUAL ON THE FRENCH SIDE. eg. Brian Mulroney danced with George Bush Senior. As an anglo-Candian, do you think Mulroney was honest or an American lapdog? (Get my point?) 3. I have seen and worked with politicians upfront. IMO, your guy does not have a good handle on the crux of the matter. He's pedalling.

With these answers, we may be on the same wavelength. What next to discuss? Hmm. Are we facing 1979? (Except the Liberal is not a real francophone?) Whaddya think?

Goldie, Gallahad: Who cares what Steyn thinks? (Is he an arbitre? - Given Hollywood, are you guys clueless?) Does CSL have ships registered outside of Canada? (Does this matter?) "Axis of paultry punditry"? Do you mean "axis of poultry punditry" or "axis of paltry punditry"? A la Trudeau, do you mean "axis of poltroon punditry"? Style over substance, and a good one. American-Canadian English! My two calls: Do you believe Paul Wells is free to write what he wants ? Do you believe Paul Desmarais influences Canadian federal politics?

Correction NOT 2:1. But the NDP at 13 and CPC at 11 is almost statistically significant. By informal info, the federalist vote in Quebec may choose the NDP as a Liberal alternative. That would be something. The NDP would be wise to identify the ridings where it has a chance. (The federalist vote cares less about specific party and absolutely does not want a BQ MP.)

The poll was taken between 12-22 February. Sample 1003. (Please note these details in the future.) (The poll's main purpose was to determine the popularity of the Charest government. Result? Fast and direct south. What does this mean for ROC? God knows.) Look, English Quebec (including so-called allophones) will vote for the "Federalist Candidate Most Likely to Win". By common consent, this is the Liberal candidate. That's 20 or so of the 38. (These people do not park their votes in polls. The matter is too serious.) More interesting is the NDP. For the non-Liberal federalist vote (anglo/franco/allo), it seems to choose the NDP 2:1 to the CPC. If there's a Liberal tipping point, would they go NDP? I

How many ridings are we talking about here? 2? Or will the BQ go full tilt boogie and let the CPC run alone in 3? The CPC can present candidates in all Quebec ridings but this is irrelevant. None will get any votes. It's as if the candidates were not running. Let me try to explain again. When Baldwin and Lafontaine formed a "joint" government in Canada East and Canada West, French Canadians were not exactly free to choose. [Many Albertans are still resentful of the NEP. Imagine the federal government had occupied Alberta and abolished the provincial government, arresting anybody who disagreed. Then, they find someone in Alberta who will agree to do a deal. (Quisling or Petain would be extreme examples. After all, this is the federal government.) I'm sorry but this is the history of Quebec from 1759 to 1837.] In the 1900s, this "Lafontaine position" evolved into the role of "Quebec Lieutenant". Trudeau rightly wanted to do away with the whole idea, given his premise that, bygones be bygones, Quebec was indeed part of Canada. (Having seen WW II, Trudeau also had ideas about nationalism and perfecting society.) Nowadays - early 2000s - French Quebec realizes Canada will not be maintained by force of arms and they are free to choose. Those that choose to put their lot in with English Canada tend to be the Ouellets and the Pelletiers of this world. I don't know if Mario would want to be considered as such. Last point: I don't know if Preston meant, as you suggested, that he was looking for an honest equal on the French Quebec side. That's why I asked for context. Thank you for the source. I'll look it up. I think it's too late for your man. He has lost forever the votes he needed to form a majority. I think he's in the process of losing the votes he needs to do better than Turner in 1984. I don't live in PM PM's riding but my local neighbourhood paper covers his riding. There was a column this week with interviews with constituents. It's sad to pathetic. They have to say that they believe he's honest. "He was here on my doorstep, I am sure he's an honest man", said the 67 year-old pensioner of Lasalle. When politicians get to this, they are in deep, deep trouble.

I don't know whether the people you quote believe that PM PM is honest and sincere. Take Mark Steyn for example... He seems so fed up with current Canada that the Devil knows what he believes. As for what I believe (does it really matter)? Was PM PM prepared to lie to become PM? I have no doubt, yes. Is he sincere? Not always in what he says. Is he honest (in the sense of not stealing money)? Here, I'd say that he is honest. Paul Desmarais has ensured that he and his children will not have to worry. PM PM will not steal from the public trough for his personal expenses. (You made the same point.) "Accept" money for party expenses? Yes, he would. (Tory John A famously sent a telegram requesting more money. Chretien may have put an end to this, with no help from pre-PM, PM.) IOW, are you asking me whether PM PM is an honest, sincere, good Canadian? Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (and National Security is the first basis of a brief).

The whole point! I have no objection to people who want to be winners. Heck, nothing would ever happen if some people were not ambitious. I don't criticise Liberals for wanting to govern. My question is: WHY IS PAUL MARTIN BEING A COMPLETE DORK AND THROWING AWAY THE POWER HE COULD HAVE HAD? Is that clear enough?

It's not a question of forming a coalition. The coalition exists in fact now. At least, coalition in the sense of agreeing not to put forward candidates in ridings where they'll compete. For the CPC and the BQ, this is the case. BQ wants this to be known. The CPC not. Baldwin? Lafontaine? That was 100 years ago or more. Pre Confederation. Sorry, but that world no longer exists. Then, French Canada was part of BNA by force of arms. At the time, the idea of anything other was absolutely out of the question. Canada, you should know, did not come about by free association. There are no Lafontaines available now. Well, they exist but most are called Ouellet or Pelletier or Chretien. Different kettle of fish. Why? Because the original Lafontaines are free to choose. There will be no more force of arms. (Thank God, and the true lesson Canada has to offer the world.) Mario? Have you ever heard of the Allard report? (Imagine Quebec passports financed by equalization payments.) Look, the French forums have their whimsy and so do the English forums. This either makes Canada a fascinating country or schizophrenic. As an Easterner, Manning (son, not father) has always impressed me as someone with an original, intelligent, sensible take on this story. (Diversity is not as easy as some pretend. To my Eastern mind, Manning was agreeably diverse.) I have never seen this quote before. I'd like to see it in context. IMV, many people in Ontario will vote for any party that they perceive as being the National Party; that is, the party that seems to have support in Quebec. The fear of Quebec separation is greatest in Ontario. Without Quebec, many voters in Ontario believe Canada will not exist and then Ontario will be, well, Michigan. To say they hate "uncertainty and risk" is misplaced. I disagree. This scandal is like the Air Traffic Controllers strike in 1976. In fact, it's worse. Money's on the table. All that's missing is sex. (Imagine some ad agency paid for company for an anglophone Cabinet minister during a lonely night in Quebec City?) Martin want one term? The guy is getting his OAP and he wants to be PM too. Sorry. His view is bigger.

I hate to add a post to my own post but can you imagine the number of Liberal Party backbenchers who now realize they made a BIG mistake supporting PM PM? They could have had Chretien, won re-election and had Bob as an Uncle. Instead, they've got THIS. As Dave Barry would say, they are in SHOCK.