August1991

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.

Michael Moore made a movie, Columbine, presenting the premise that the "powers that be" control the masses through fear. Michael Moore and his premise are apparently right. But this seems to apply only in Ontario when the State uses the fear tactic. BTW, fear makes people, at least in Canada, want the State to protect them and choose policies advocated by Michael Moore.

Hawk, I spent the evening scrutineering at a poll in conversation with a BQ guy. I liked the Hollywood moments of ordinary people arriving with their cards, purses, kids. Democracy! It is more sobering to open the box and realize that most Xs were a complete waste of time because they will change absolutely nothing. In this poll of this Montreal riding, the Libs voted in the morning (box bottom) and the BQ and NDP (existed!) in the evening (box top). BTW, the BQ guy had absolutely no respect for the Liberals. We argued about whether the PQ is too leftist and this has prevented Quebec independance.

Hawk, Ontario is the least confident part of Canada - with BC a flaky second. The Ontario fear is that if Canada falls apart, Ontario becomes Michigan. The Liberal Party has played on this fear before. A Corner Brook Liberal vote is not at all the same thing as a Brampton Liberal vote. Make no mistake, Stephen Harper was presented as a threat to Ontario. The Liberal ads got them at least 25 seats in Ontario and enough to form a legitimate government.

In his speech, Duceppe held out a real olive branch to Canada. I don't know if ROC got the message. One should understand how irrelevant this election is to many Quebecers. It is a side show to a much bigger issue. But Duceppe has tried to make it relevant. Layton. Smilin' Jack. At least Olive wasn't wearing green anymore. The tail wagging the dog. Harper needs a new speechwriter. Not much, just someone with a poetic sense to give him a line or two that he's comfortable with that shows he has a soul. Harper said he was disappointed. But party workers should not be because the Liberals did not get a majority. That is graphic, not poetic. Martin has passion, but it's all powder in the eyes. Il est un peteux de broue. During his whole speech about how he will represent all regions, build Canada, make Quebec stronger, be honest, have the honour to be Canadian... All I could see was the number 54 flip to 55 at the bottom of the screen. This type of politics works in Ontario alone now. It is not the future of Canada.

That's what the Liberal spin was all about. And it worked because the perception in Ontario was that the Tories are dangerous loose cannons. Martin has a new lease on life. Did you see his speech? WTF?

I don't know where you are Hawk but those Liberal attack ads worked in Ontario but they didn't work in Quebec. I spent the last few days in the two provinces and that was obvious to me. Attack ads work in Canada (or at least in Ontario). That will be the lesson of this election.

Not over until it's over. Libs+NDP form a razor thin majority. But true, I never would have thunk. I'm sure there are many NDP voters who put an X by a Liberal name. Layton ran a good campaign. The ads at the end "You have a positive choice" were attack-ad, but civilized.

The Toronto Star poll on the weekend was close to the final result. Clearly what happened is that enough people in Ontario were frightened with the idea of Harper as PM and decided to vote Liberal. The result is that about 25 Ontario seats went Liberal, not Tory. Polls aren't the issue. Attack ads work.

PM PM was the right wing tough guy of the Liberal Party who booted out Sheila Copps and all those socialists. The Liberals say whatever is necessary to get votes.

From what I can see, alot of people in Ontario were influenced by the Liberal attack ads and decided that Harper was a scary guy. True, Harper let them do it. But the real lesson is that attack ads work in Canada. BTW, the NDP was as much a victim. Many potential NDP voters switched to Liberal. The only regions that voted honestly (without fear) were Quebec and the Prairies.

Thank you Michael for making the same individual points I would have made. Here though I'll disagree with you. Child poverty is much less of a problem in Canada than it once was but it still exists in the world. Putting a few dollars in a poor child's pocket makes a difference.Late me be plain, around the world, the best child policy would be a parent in a job with a good wage.

DAC, I disagree with many of your individual points and at first thought I would go through your post point-by-point but instead, I'll try a different tack. In Quebec, the government in the past few decades has gotten involved in what might be called "social engineering" or an attempt to "improve" people through social policy. The State has somehow taken over the role of the Catholic Church. [in North America and Europe in general, the atrocities of WWII lead to a desire to "improve society" and a belief in the "perfectibility of man".] For example, in Quebec, a woman is not allowed to assume her husband's name at marriage. The purpose is to ensure that the woman remains an independant individual in her own right. I mention all this because the results of these social engineering experiments have been mixed. I frankly think they will ultimately fail unless people decide they like the changes. So, DAC, your long post suggests too often that the State should intervene to somehow change people. It's another form of social engineering. I don't think it will work but alot of effort will be wasted. Where moral questions are concerned, it is best for the State to be pragmatic. For example, most moral questions in Canada are left to local jurisdictions (eg. drinking age, youth offenders). This means some places allow certain activities and other places forbid them. This is as it should be and is pragmatic. ----- To get back to your thread, marriage means little anymore, nor should it, unless children are involved. In fact, the modern definition of marriage is having children, whether the parents are married or not. The issue seems to be what is the best way to ensure children grow up in a good environment? This is hardly a new problem. It is at the root of our existence as a species, or indeed any species.

Christopher Mac;

Revision noted, MS.

You underestimate the shrewdness of Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. You also ignore the old adage, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows." Alliance rump? We don't yet know what the Tory caucus will look like but there will be some 40 new MPs from Ontario. I think PM PM will resign (and that would ensure no election while they choose a new leader) but I'm not so certain as I was before. But given the ugly civil war in the Liberal Party in the past few months, Herle is history and PM PM most likely too, whether he wants to resign or not.

Do you have any evidence of that? 40 years puts us at 1964. Try stats on child mortality, hospital beds per 1000, telephones per 1000.For all I know, it may well be that in some African countries poor people were better off in 1964 than in 2004. Which begs the question, why? You use the term "compared to the richest 10%". Do you mean that it is best if society reduces the gap between rich and poor, even if it means that everyone has less? I have the impression Blair that you have started from a premise (anti-US, anti-corporation, anti-private sector) and then you have sought to find evidence or create arguments to support your opinion. That's not the scientific method.

For the initial post, I transcribed almost word-for-word something a friend said to me. It is wholly subjective.My interpretation? Too often, there is too much suspicion on the side of English-speaking Canada. The position of French-speaking Canada forces them to trust the better nature of the majority.

At the risk of being completely foolish in public, here are my predictions before we know the results: There is little doubt that it will be a minority government with either the Libs or the Tories having a plurality of seats. PM PM has said that the party with the most seats gets first dibs at forming a government. There is little chance the NDP will have enough seats to support alone a minority government. Hence, the Liberals or the Tories will have to support each other on a confidence vote or seek support from the the BQ. My prediction: A minority Tory government that will last for as long as two years. It will do this by seeking usually BQ support but Liberal support when the BQ won't offer it. Even if the Libs get most seats, my prediction will still come true. There is no way the BQ and the Tories will support a Liberal government. But the BQ will support a Tory government. I suspect Duceppe and Harper have already talked about this in very general terms. It explains in part their relative calmness in the past few days. The BQ is in a funny position. It doesn't want to become a permanent fixture. But it also wants to make plain that it can get along with English Canada. The Liberals will have a new leader within one year.

I have seen the federal Liberals do this bait and switch tactic too often to believe that PM PM is any different. If Canada was not a fundamentally fractured country, the Liberal Party would have long since disappeared. We just went through an election where the BQ was involved in an English debate despite having no candidates running in English Canada. And obviously, the Greens were excluded from the same debate. Only Edward Albee could capture such nonsense.

True.As they say, vote early and vote often.

I have seen this film and I didn't find it as entertaining as 'Roger and Me'. F911 is a mish-mash with some very good sequences. The first act concerning the Saudis and the Bushes ignores the fact that the Saudis have ties all through US politics. Prince Bandar has been in Washington a long, long time. When Mark Steyn and Michael Moore agree on something, you have to give it some thought. The scene with Bush in the Florida school room on Sept. 11 is devastating and is worth the ticket price alone. The final act about the war in Iraq covers material presented better in Hearts and Minds. In between all this, there are numerous shots of Bush Jnr in various poses. People that truly dislike him will get to feel superior. Will this film have an effect on the election? Yes it will. Along with several thousand other events between now and November. IMV, Moore Has a good editor's eye for the newsworthy but he has no ability to put anything into a coherent whole. Incidentally, if you wish someone in Canada would make this kind of stuff, Le Confort et l'Indifférence is a better movie.