August1991

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.

I disa gree Larkin, and I think MS is right.This result is unstable because the Libs apparently can't govern with the NDP alone. With an extra Lib MP or two, things become easier. As I say, take a look at Crosbie's description of the Nfld 1971 election and what happened to Tom Burgess.

Hansard does record what it refers to as "divisions". But it is hard to find them in all the verbiage.Here's a random example and you'll have to search "division" on the page. The US system with ratings is best though. In the Maritimes, it used to be a family thing. In Quebec too although the PQ truly changed all that.In Canada with party whips, the political party becomes the "rating agency" and that's why people vote for the leader. Our MP is at most an ombudsman for us. IOW, a trained seal. Even in the UK the MPs have more autonomy and frequently vote against their leader. Bear in mind too that in the UK, it is the caucus that chooses the leader. Thatcher was ousted because she lost her caucus support. The Liberals have over the years made the PM of a majority almost a dictator with support from the PCO. There used to be more checks: for example, a cabinet shuffle used to require a by-election for each newly admitted cabinet member. Harper's suggestion of a free vote was too radical to be understood, I think. It is contrary to how the Liberals have run the Canadian government. Too bad the idea wasn't discussed during the campaign.

There's an absolutely hilarious story in Crosbie's "No Holds Barred" about a similar election result in Nfld (at the end of Smallwood's reign I believe) that involved getting one MLA drunk to make him a new best friend and Frank Moores making some under the table payments. There may well be some floor crossing. I would hazard a guess of BQ or Tory to Liberal. Jack Horner walked. The Liberals are good at such deals. OTOH, who will trust PM PM now after what he did to Gagliano and crew.

Natural resource royalties belong to provincial governments. This is a tremendous gift when compared with other countries where typically the centre gets these. This feature was decided in 1867 well before Alberta and oil. I know this is a reach but we have in effect three regional parties: The Quebec Party (BQ), the Western Party (CPC) and the Eastern Party (Libs). It happens that the most seats (and even votes) are in the Eastern region so the Eastern Party wins. PR wouldn't change this but it would make our current election result more or less permanent. Always a minority. Regionalism not ideology drives Canadian politics.

Duceppe said today that no BQ member will be speaker. "It is better if the person is a federalist." Incidentally, the speaker and party whips are critical in a minority parliament. The speaker for making rulings and the whips for member counts.

But that's exactly correct Idealist. I just voted in an election and I just bought a cup of coffee. There is a supreme difference bewteen these two acts. Imagine if all our decisions were taken by democratic vote; that is, imagine if we always decided as the majority desires. The reason that is bad is because the minority will be forced to do as the majority chooses. (If I am not in a country of coffee drinkers, I lose.) It gets worse. One person, one vote does not reflect the strength of one's opinion. Some people feel very strongly about environmental protection and others could care less. An election offers no way of indicating those feelings. (I absolutely love coffee and the others don't like it but could live with coffee if they had to.) Last but not least, consider how much time and energy most people devote to deciding what car to buy compared with what party to vote for. They get a direct benefit from their car research. They get no benefit from their political research because their one vote will change nothing. (I'll let you go to all the trouble of forming the pro-coffee party, doing the costing estimates and so on. Then when you succeed, I get the benefit of coffee.) Democratic elections are an extremely poor way to make collective decisions.

Onatrio is the only part of Canada where people identify themselves as Canadian rather than Ontarian. Ontarians are a bit like Americans who have usurped a word to describe themselves when in fact it properly covers two continents.IME, Ontarians know much less about the other parts of Canada than the other parts know about Onatrio. Within Ontario, the same sort of relationship applies to Toronto, hogtown. The Liberal fear campaign worked because Harper was an unknown in Ontario. QED. The Constitution dictates that 24 senators must come from each of four regions: Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the West and 6 for Nfld. (I believe there are even ridings.) In addition, the PM gets 8 freebie senators if he wants. (Mulroney did this to get the GST through.)The Constitution also dictates that there must be a minimum of 75 MPs from Quebec.

Wait a second here. The NDP got all of 15% of the vote, and were as much if not more a victim of the Liberal campaign as the Tories. This past election was not issue-driven in any way. It wasn't even ideological. The English TV debate portrayed the campaign well: everyone yelling at each other. You yourself BD stated in several posts that there was little difference between the Libs and the "Alliance-Conservatives". We just witnessed a US-style negative campaign and it worked in Ontario. (The federalists are past masters at this in Quebec against the PQ. It no longer works here though.) It amounts to making people feel the sky will fall if the opponent wins. The end result is that several hundred thousand Ontario voters (mostly women I would guess) changed their vote to Liberal from Tory and NDP. They changed in the last few days or minutes before voting. That's not only my view, it's also the view of Kinsella.

This is the quote someone should show to Harper. Theodore Roosevelt

If the CEO does and I disagree, I can sell my shares.But if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. The only way I can avoid union dues is by quitting my job. The critical question is whether it is voluntary or not. Good analogy. And apt.The Liberals used taxpayers' money to give generous contracts to advertising firms who in turn gave generous donations to the Liberal Party. This was the so-called dirty money Duceppe kept asking about and is the reason for the BQ's slogan, un parti propre au Québec. (That means both "Quebec's clean party" and "Quebec's own party".)

In the US, this is done privately. One of the best examples is Michale Barone's Almanac. There are also private rating agencies. Here's an example. This is evidence of a real democracy.

I know most people are discussing the election but I just discovered this. rabble.ca So I go over to www.alternatives.ca and read this: I have no objection to churches giving money away like this. But I object to CIDA paying for this. And is this what union dues are intended for?

Look, these Liberal style attack ads have been used against the PQ since 1970. It's taken a long time but it doesn't work now. (It was vaguely pathetic to see PM PM yelling about separation and the end of Canada in this past election.) The Liberal attack ads (soldiers jumping out of helicopters, guns shooting, women sitting on clinic floors or Mulroney/Harris destroyed the economy) are the same thing. "If the Tories win, the sky is going to fall so don't vote Tory." It 's hard to respond to such ads. The PQ used gentle persuasion endlessly applied. In the States, the opponent goes negative too.

I understand what you mean Michael but I think you're wrong.The Tories can present themselves anyway they want but the Liberals will always paint them as dangerous (inexperienced/incompetent) and enough Ontario voters will apparently believe the Liberals. It is the nature of attack ads to emphasize the perceived negative side of the opponent. These kinds of ads don't work in Quebec anymore (the PQ was vilified everyway imaginable - people ignore that stuff now seeing it as just part of the game).

Wente in the G&M There were about 25 Ontario seats that went Liberal because of the Liberal attack ads. Those ads scared people, women in particular. That will be the lesson of this campaign.

This won't work for long. Have you ever tried to arrange a meeting with 150 people? Usually, in a minority government, the whips agree to hold back members if other members are absent so that a vote goes through. With numbers so close, they may not do that. BTW, the BQ will find it difficult to impossible to vote for a Liberal confidence motion.

Michael Moore has based two films on his theory that the "powers that be" can frighten people and make them do what it wants. That theory doesn't work in Quebec or the Prairies (and I doubt it works in the US) but it apparently works in Ontario. Well, Harper was a new guy and the Liberal attack ads frightened enough people in Ontario. What do you mean, "right wing"?

CDN, Harris won two majorities in Ontario, if I'm not mistaken.

Quebec? They are very uncomfortable voting for Western leaders. There is almost no other way to iunterpret this. The Liberal negative attack ads worked in Ontario. But they didn't work in the West. (The French attack ads didn't work in Quebec.) You draw your own conclusion.

Interesting? It appears we will all count. And many Canadians will think that Paul Martin and the Liberals won with the most elected deputies so, what is the problem? Let's see.

I don't know. Is a Harper-Duceppe Canada better than a Martin-Layton Canada? For starters, the Harper-Duceppe Canada speaks intelligently two languages. Like Macdonald-Cartier, Baldwin-Lafontaine, Fulton-Favreau. All shocking in their time. Canada requires an open mind. A Harper-Dumont Canada might be best of all. Whatever, let's make it happen and get on with life. Let's be honest.

Absolutely.The numbers to watch are whether Lib + NDP make 155 (a Speaker is required). There is no way the Libs can manage otherwise. The NDP are about to become prostitutes. I would have preferred (I expected) a Harper BQ/Lib play off. The Canada of Trudeau, Macdonald, Laurier, King will be badly served by this Lib/NDP, Martin/Layton do-in. Why? It is an English do-in. Sorry. I am still astonished that so many Ontario voters fell to the Liberal fear tactics. (Immigrants. They don't get Canada. "The Liberal Party allowed me to become a Canadian".)

True.But ROC (Ontario) let the Liberals in. Why?

Be careful. Whether the BQ should even exist is a big issue in Quebec.Apparently, the Liberals are now the Ontario party. Harper was right at the very beginning of this campaign. It is possible to be Canadian without being Liberal. He should have pursued and explained that idea.