August1991

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.

Chretien kill the principles? Chretien was the epitome of Liberal principles. He would have stayed in power forever. In private, Chretien accurately said "I'm at 60 in the polls. I must be doing something right. I don't care what the complainers say." If you're a Liberal, let me show you this same idea a different way. One of Trudeau's son was recently quoted as saying that his father told him not to get into politics because of all the distasteful things that a politician must do. IOW, a cursory examination of Canadian history (post 1896) will show that the federal Liberal Party exists for one sole purpose: to have power. Are you on drugs? Do you really believe PM PM is honest and sincere? (He wants to be King of the Castle. Full Stop.) But here's the question: If he wants to be King, why is he doing what he's doing? That is, why is he shooting himself in the foot? Is he a Nixon? "I gave them a sword..." or "I fouled up in the one thing I was supposed to be really good at: politics." Well, to be honest, I don't think PM PM is as interesting as Nixon. For starters, the stakes are not as high. But in addition, the case of PM PM can easily be explained with one word: hubris.

Discussing a minority government at this point is hypothetical in the extreme, nevertheless it seems possible. Moreover, the next Parliament risks being a four way split in which choosing the government may not be obvious. Liberals could govern in a stable manner with NDP support if the combined numbers are sufficient. The question, in a sense, is whether the CPC could govern with BQ support ? This is what French posters were considering - but I think it's wishful thinking on their part. They simply want to believe that the Liberals will be excluded from power. More realistically, I see a Liberal rump playing off the three others as necessary to get a majority on critical issues. The tradition in Canada has been for the party with a plurality of seats to form a government. But this need not be the case. It would be as if the Liberals had remained in power in 1979 (as some Liberals wanted). The final fact is that the CPC will go nowhere in French Quebec. (I recall the 1984 election when they crossed over to Mulroney. For many, it was a leap of faith. Such conditions simply don't exist now. French Quebec will simply vote BQ.) As a result, there is a de facto coalition between the CPC and the BQ. They do not compete at the riding level. Admitting the existence of this situation is advantageous to the BQ because it makes them credible in the eyes of French Quebec voters. For the CPC however, this idea only provokes negatives in the eyes of English Canada voters. It's a fact no CPC leader can publicly hint. (I thought Harper was courageously honest to say what he said about Duceppe.) Politics makes strange bedfellows. With that truism, your suggestion of a Manning/Dumont coalition made me laugh. But in fact, there is some sense to it. But I always thought that Manning had weight. Dumont is too much of a dilettante. The similarity however is that Ontario voters view Manning the way French Quebec voters view Dumont. Possible, but not for real.

On second thought, your last comment is critically wise. How did this all start? Did the Liberals have no control over what the A-G did or said? In their mind, they had complete control over the A-G. (Think: This is Liberal Ottawa.) Nevertheless, you have a point. I have a suspicion that PM PM has such an ego that he told the A-G "Tell the truth." But in his mind, he thought, "I'm so good, I'm better than all the others. l'll manage even when the truth is told." Result? Ego. Greek Tragedy.

Well, exactly. Professionals would have waited. Nixon did. Duh. Why didn't Martin wait? Well, Chretien wanted a February hand off but Martin wanted something earlier. Martin won and the Fraser press conference happened once Chretien was a has-been... Why? Martin couldn't wait. Now, this matters if you believe in the way the rules work... Do you believe the LPC cares about what the CA/PC do (does)? Well, they might soon but it will be a strange experience for them.

Good timing? Get scandal stuff out of the way? CPC preoccupied? I don't think you understand the gravity of this scandal. This is the 1976 Air Traffic Controller strike combined with tax payer money, Latin face and Quebec aspirations. IOW, this affects English Canada and French Canada. This is TERRIBLE timing. PM PM chose a short-term cabinet in preparation of an election. He is now pedalling every which way to put it all back together because he can't keep his cabinet together until October. He HAS to call an election soon. In naive, pre-renaissance Canada, we think (believe) the Liberals are like the CPSU or the Pope. They are perfectly competent and knowledgeable about everything. THEY'RE NOT. They are NOT infallible. The LPC are human and bungle. We are all watching this happen in real time. These guys have no plan! They are making this up as they go along. Evidence? Apart from what you can see on your own, this scandal critically concerns the relations of French and English Canada. (I'm not French by origin, rather a Newf in fact, but Canada's history is, well, Canada-East and Canada-West. Westerner? Sorry, but kinda true.) How these relations are managed matters. Today's "firings" are opening salvos. PM PM humiliated Ouellet but allowed full pay. (Martin is no franco. Trudeau would have fired the guy outright.) End of story? Are these guys taking a dive? More likely, an opening salvo. Gawd, whadda mess.

What a sterile, boring debate you have fallen into... Is Greed Human? Are Humans Good? Is Greed Bad? Do we need religion to keep us in check fromn our evil impulses? Is that what it's all about ultimately? Laws and an internal referee of moral fairness, otherwise we lose the thin veneer of civilisation? Please, someone, start a new topic with the title "Competition vs. Cooperation" or some such.