August1991

Final seat results: Atl CPC 7 Lib 21 NDP 3 Que BQ 54 Lib 21 Ont CPC 24 Lib 75 NDP 4 SK/MB/Terr CPC 20 Lib 7 NDP 4 Alta CPC 26 Lib 2 BC CPC 22 Lib 8 NDP 5 Oth 1 Totals BQ 54 CPC 99 Lib 135 NDP 19 Oth 1 These are the people that got the Liberal win right. I'd say Fisher, Kliege and Kanada Dry were the closest.

I know this thread is supposed to be about the traditional family and so on but since you seem to be on this religious jag, can I make a comment? I must be deeply suspicious about anyone who claims to have the "truth" and then tells me that if I don't accept this "truth", I am going to suffer for eternity. If the purpose is to inspire faith or trust, isn't that kind of a dumb way to start a sales pitch?

I blame Anna-Maria Tremonti. Not only is she left-wing but she's also incompetent. Something else. Duceppe was in the English debate but few if any of the listeners could vote for his party. Absurd.

I just did a rough calculation of the NZ system applied to Quebec and in the process of doing this, I realized that the BQ will not likely accept such a system. Furthermore, the debate about such a system would get mixed up (as usual) with the endless debate between federalists (would be pro) and souverainistes (would be against). ---- Below are the party votes in Quebec for the 2004 federal election: Lib: 37.9% Con: 8.6% NDP: 4.6% BQ: 48.8% Electorate Seats BQ: 54 Lib: 21 Party Seats BQ: 0 Lib: 7 NDP: 3 Con: 6 Total (91) BQ: 54 Lib: 28 NDP: 3 Con: 6 In NZ, a party must get over 5% to qualify but I gave 3 seats to the NDP. The total of 91 should be lower because the electorate seats should be fewer.

Not true.The existence of the BQ is frequently debated in PQ circles. Many view the BQ as sending reps to a foreign parliament. Duceppe has argued that the BQ best represents the interests of Quebec. He frequently gives the example of 1980 when Quebec gave 74 of 75 seats to Trudeau who then proceeded to patriate the Constitution without Quebec's consent. (Trudeau always claimed he had that consent through the federal MPs. Since 1980, the Liberals have never done well in francophone Quebec.) On election night, Duceppe held out an olive branch to ROC. He says often that la politique du pire est la pire des politiques. He has said that the best way to advance the independance cause is to be reasonable with ROC and respectful. You must understand that souvérainistes/separatists are patient. Compare: The French and Indian Wars (Seven Years War) started in 1756 and the US Constitution was signed in 1789. The origins of the US Civil War started at least 30 years before 1861.

In Quebec, 10,000 students voted and in Ontario, 125,000 voted. There were votes in only 38 Quebec ridings. There is a general disinterest in federal politics in Quebec which is even stronger among the young. I'd bet well over half francophone Grade 11 students don't know who the PM of Canada is.

PR in Canada must be on a provincial basis. I don't think PR would require a constitutional amendment. Anyone know?

I think you're wrong TS. The Liberal attack ads played precisely on that prejudice in Ontario. It worked with many voters. This is the reason this past election was not good for Canada. That, plus the massive francophone rejection of the only federalist party in Quebec.

I find it hard to argue with you Michael. But I open up my G&M this morning to see a story about a quadrapelgic Tory elected and a Tory couple of Indian origin elected. Belinda Stronach was elected. There was at least one openly gay Tory candidate I am aware of. The idea of free votes is not bad. Harper was moderate. There were two effective Liberal attack ads: the helicopter, gun firing and the Mulroney-Harris mess. Both implied that if Harper won, the sky would fall in. The female narrating voice is icy. You spoke of bullet-proofing against this but it's easier said than done. Any leader from the West is going to be suspect, and vulnerable to such ads in the East. In the US, the response is to go negative too. (Money thrown in garbage cans isn't enough.) Incidentally, those TV ads must have cost the Liberals a bundle. Or did they?

We really should start a new thread on PR. Here are my comments (for what they are worth). I haven't seen these points in the discussion above. 1. You seem to think that if we had PR, people would continue to vote the way they do. They wouldn't. The equivalent might be like saying that if the city puts in a no parking sign, people will get lots of parking tickets. Voters will change their voting habits with a new system. Moreover, the political parties will also change. 2. The right wing argument in favour of PR relies on the idea that a dictator (as FPTP tends to give us) is more likely to be interventionist because it is easy to do. A majority can easily respond to a request for pork. A minority government requires haggling and is often a recipe for non-action. (Admittedly, this was not Canada's experience in 1972-74 nor 1963-68.) 3. Canadian politics are primarily regional. The Tories and NDP got no seats in Quebec but many Quebec voters chose these parties. For a long time, the Libs got no seats west of Thunder Bay, yet many westerners voted Liberal. PR would correct this problem. Ultimately, we want our electoral system to reflect accurately and cheaply as possible the wishes of Canadians. The NZ system on a provincial basis might be very good for Canada. I am certain it would attract alot of interest in Quebec.

Federal NDP Seats (%) 2004 .. 19 .. (15.7) 2000 .. 13 .. (8.5) 1997 .. 21 .. (11.0) 1993 .. 9 .. (6.9) 1988 .. 43 .. (20.4) 1984 .. 30 .. (18.8) 1980 .. 32 .. (19.8) 1979 .. 26 .. (17.9) 1974 .. 16 .. (15.4) 1972 .. 31 .. (17.7) 1968 .. 22 .. (17.0) If you can see anything impressive there, you've got better eyes than I. All I see is that the NDP is back to where it was in 1974. In fairness though, the Liberal attack ads at the end of the campaign probably moved the NDP down 2% or 3% and cost them perhaps 5 seats or so.

Nine of the ten provincial legislatures approved the Constitution Act of 1982. Quebec's National Assembly alone rejected it, unanimously.

Which is education, a private good or a public good? It looks pretty much like a private good to me. In Canada, it's a state-provided private good, like health care. ---- But think for a second. We take kids at the age of about 4 and put them through this State-controlled environment until they're about 20 or so. Many don't get through. Those that do get through often learn little. Almost all of them find most of it excruciatingly boring. This is somehow Orwellian. I am surprised that this still exists in the 21st century. Final point. Where do rich Canadians send their kids? Are you aware that many secondary schools in Quebec are private but receive State subsidies? The best way to understand a society is to understand its education system. People are never more self-interested than when the question concerns the welfare of their children.

What about the gay, non-white, non-male, pro-choice Tory candidates running in Ontario and Quebec. Nobody heard anything from them or even about them. In any case, I don't think it was the media that had a lot to do with this. It was those Liberal ads. They were very, very effective in Ontario, with women. They were designed precisely to do it. Look TalkNumb, if you insist on believing that Harper has a hidden agenda to turn Canada into a Christian Saudi Arabia with Brazilian wealth distribution, then fine. But it means that your abilities as an intelligent analyst are basically nil.

Paul Martin, left-leaning? What planet are you from? They saw what Herle showed Harper to be and some of them (not many) were afraid. (Many were NDP who switched to Liberal in the last few days.) I have seen the Liberals do this many times in Quebec. What was the famous Trudeau line in Quebec in 1980? "We will put our seats on the line and change Canada so you don't have to vote yes." Bait and switch, or scare people. I'm surprised both Rev and TalkNumb fall for this. At least call a spade a spade.

There you go again, TalkNumb. And Jack Layton has a lot in common with Fidel Castro because they both favour socialized medicine.

I suggest we ask Bill Clinton to do this. I'm sure he'd be happy with all those pages sprawled at his feet.

I suggest we start with the car companies and Bombardier. But the NDP would strongly object.BTW, shareholders pay tax on any dividend earnings and capital gains. Corporate tax is double taxation.

To the extent people in Quebec care about this, I have seen several reports stating the same as you, iamcan. The general feeling is that Quebecers did the right thing; it was ROC that got it wrong.

By no stretch of the imagination did Stephen Harper run a campaign based on social conservatism. He barely ran a campaign on fiscal conservatism. Instead, the Liberals ran some extremely effective US-style attack ads in Ontario that demonized Harper. The result was that about 25 Ontario seats went Liberal instead of Tory and NDP. Without that, we all would be writing very different things on this forum. The Liberals have perfectly understood what they did. I don't know if it's possible for Liberals to be more cynical. Why this tactic worked and why the Tories didn't respond are questions for another thread. But please don't draw grand socio-political conclusions from what amounted to a "good" campaign move.

I'm surprised that a supremely confident with-it type of cool guy such as you TalkNumb would fall so easily for the Liberal spin and attack ads. Do you know what kind of candidates the Tories fielded in Ontario and Quebec?

Are you suggesting that we rich North Americans caused the AIDS epidemic? That we caused those rich Saudi guys to fly those planes into those buildings?The war on drugs. Hmmm. That seems to be primarily a war in the US itself. And are you saying that I should be upset if the RCMP shuts down a crack house on my street? "because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes" - Please elaborate. I don't know what Kepler was doing in his life when he figured out his second law of planetary motion but I once worked my way through the proof. My point was about the so-called scientific method as a way to arrive at the "truth" - it largely amounts to being an intelligent skeptic willing to dispense with pre-conceived notions.

Amen. The issue here is what is the "unit" of taxation: should it be the family or the individual. I tend to agree with your suggestion. (Let me think about it and in particulr, why it hasn't been done...) I disagree strongly. Families don't "need" two incomes. It's a choice. The government shouldn't influence that choice in any way.IMV, the idea of a national day care plan is just as bad as what you propose. (Is it not ironic that people talk about encouraging home care to relieve the burden on our health system while simultaneously wanting to create a day care system?) At the same time, I wonder why State education starts at age 6 and State day care at age 4. However this is done, it should be entirely a provincial issue. Is this really a problem? You have my full agreement.

You make it sound as if the US is this one, big guy. The US is 300 million people each doing their own little thing in their own way. Even the US federal government amounts to a million or so people doing all kinds of things. I think KK earlier said he can choose to go to the US, Montreal or Toronto for his gigs. In fact, he can choose to deal with people in those places (and they will choose to deal with him). If you are a kind of slave to the US, who exactly in the US (a name please) owns you? I'm still giggling KK.

Exactly, we don't decide coffee drinking by democratic vote. But the Liberals and NDP want to decide child care services, for example, that way. And going back to the purpose of this thread, the Liberals have decided that financing web sites like rabble.ca should be done this way. My point is that we should make as few collective decisions this way as possible. Free markets, as the coffee example illustrates, are an extremely good way of making collective decisions. But of course, markets don't always work.