August1991

I agree. But correct for bias.The point is that phones calls don't work anymore. The alternatives are: Internet polls or face to face in street or at door. Call it sophisticated, honest, mini Focus Groups.

They do all of that.I think the pollsters are secretly hoping for bad predictions so that they can argue for expensive "at door" interviews for the polls at the next election. In Russia, that's how it's done. Person-to-person, face-to-face, countable, verifiable. The truth. Combine cross-Canada face to face questions with StatCan data, and then correlated side questions and the truth is maybe honest. (Random sampling is robust unless there is systematic bias.) Whatta business...

TalkNumb, you're smart but everyone else is stupid. Argus, that's the game. Harper knew this in advance. He could have gone over heads, as he did at the beginning. It worked then but later it didn't. What happened?IMV, Harper and Layton played the game as honestly but as close to the edge as I know. PM PM is all over the map. What do ROC (Ontario) voters want? If Harper wants to be PM because he thinks he can do good, then he should have done a Clinton. IOW, any damn fool can burn down a barn... but Harper should have screwed the sucker. [PS. Why do Martin and Duceppe get "Get Out of Jail" cards?]

And the CBC.

Shoot the messenger.I don't want to hit you Argus because your responses to others on this thread are - more or less - OK. (I'll read their response to you.) Harper had no chance for a majority. But he could have been certain of a minority and set the stage for enough seats in Quebec next time round to form a majority. To English: Harper didn't. Why? To French: PM PM and Herle may well get their seats, and a humbled "win". This is not 1925-26. This is the Martin Liberals eating humble pie and then, when ready, "falling victim" to an election about "Canada". The next election will be a repeat of Trudeau in 1980. Liberal majority in a couple of months. If Martin wins, this charade will carry on... To World: Heck, I happen to think Harper could have put this country honestly back together again and made the BQ a federalist party. I wish.

Politician has nothing to do with it. Did you read the 'Harper v. Canada' decision? It comes directly from Quebec's 1980 referendum legislation, and a civil code approach to social life. When respected, this is good. But North Americans are not always respectable people. The 1995 referendum is good evidence of that.

I saw a full page ad in the Toronto Star this morning about starving Canadian kids. The ad stated that the Conservative Party is the only party that has no policy for protecting children. In Quebec, there are street signs asking who will protect the unemployed and what happened to their surplus. Michael Moore has said that he moved the Canadian release date of his movie forward to influence the federal election result. The Supreme Court decision about non-party spending is based on the Quebec referendum legislation which is a civil law approach to society. In North America, it doesn't work. It didn't work in the 1995 referendum (when federalists spent well beyond limits) and it's not working now. The Supreme Court is falling dangerously into Soviet/Catholic Church/CBC territory. "We claim it to be true so it is true." Wait for the Supreme Court to issue edicts stating that the Canadian government is in contempt because it is not enforcing the Court's decisions. But the ultimate will be Supreme Court announcements, as the Soviets and Church did in their own way, stating the Court has "complete confidence in the Canadian Government's ability to deal with the problem". For historians and Kremlinologists, that's the tip off that there's a problem.

Why did Harris retire? I'm sorry, I haven't followed Ontario politics closely, but it seems to me that Harris suddenly decided to retire. Why?Harris struck me as a ski-instructor who decided, some 20 years later, to pretend to be Margaret Thatcher facing striking coal miners (in the guise of Ontario teachers). The coal miners were on the losing end of new technology. Teachers will be with us always. Harris should have co-opted the teachers, not fought them.

Watch for pollsters to ask other questions, highly correlated with voting tendencies, and make predictions accordingly. (ie. Do you think government should protect us less?)But a fundamental problem is the Call Identifier. Certain people don't answer phones.

In all likelihood, there will be another election in a year or so. Greg, for the next election, figure out a way to set up numbers racket, do secure money on line and then donate proceeds to a charity we all agree on.

The English Canada nomenclatura went along with Liberal spin. Harper knew the Liberals would do this but the Tories apparently bungled the response.Compare this with Duceppe. The Liberal scare tactics are half-hearted, don't work and look really, really dumb. Harper tried to run a Duceppe campaign. It worked for one, but not the other.

TalkNumb is right on this. Look at Argus' list. This election was not about any of it.Harper lost control of the election agenda. This election was attack negative all the way. The best Tory ad was the crumpled money in the garbage can. The best Liberal ad was the soldiers jumping from the helicopter. The best NDP ad was "the afraid of Martin and Harper? Vote positive..." [The BQ got off absolutely Scot-Free. The debates were a sin.] There was no high road in this election and the Tories didn't understand that. Argus, you started this thread by saying what the REAL issues are. First, are these really the issues? Second, if they are, why didn't Harper make them fron and centre?

From previous posts, I don`t know what you're for but you have a distinct dislike for Alliance types (which you confuse with the Tories). The editorial boards of the G&M and the Toronto Star are in favour of the Liberals. The CBC belittles Harper. I just spent a few days in southern Ontario where voting Liberal seems to be a perfectly acceptable public thing to do. (Harper is a coldly dangerous man and Layton has a "big mouth and a long tongue", as one female Liberal voter loudly explained to me in a public place.)I got the impression that a public admission of a Conservative vote was tantamount to declaring George Bush Jnr a wise and articulate leader. If anything, there are closet Conservatives in Ontario. People who want to kick the Liberals out, don't like the NDP, are not afraid of Harper but lack the courage to announce this to everyone. But TalkNumb, your idea is really interesting. I agree with you about the UK election. In Quebec, there are closet Liberals outside of Montreal. What happens when a pollster phones a wife and her husband stays in the room? Does the wife answer honestly? The great thing about democracy is that it is a secret ballot. This election may well be a turning point for pollsters, like 1936. Their job is getting harder.

If TalkNumb's purpose is to impress by volume, he should think of the job of an editor. Ho Holds Barred by John Crosbie is the best recent Canadian politics book I've read. Prior to that, Renegade in Power by Peter Newman is extremely good. I have found every thing by Bruce Hutchison good too. My favourite is Mr. Prime Minister. (It is much better than Gordon Donaldson's The Prime Ministers of Canada.) IMV, the best Trudeau book is the one by Radwanski (yes, the same guy). It is much, much better than Gwyn's Northern Magus. (Desperate to be re-elected in 1979, Trudeau opened himself to Radwanski.) In Quebec, in English, read Conrad Black's Duplessis. It's remarkable. The best history of Canada was written by an American, Mason Wade, The French Canadians. World history/politics? Read Bullock's A Study in Tyranny. I don't care how old it is, it is still the best. Economics/Philosophy? If economics is confusing, read Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. It's old, and Heilbroner's a leftist but the book is fun. Also read P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich. Absolutely hilarious, with serious points too. You should also read at least one novel by Ayn Rand (I suggest We the Living) and understand her basic premise. I have kept to English language books of general interest. IME, for history/politics, it is best to read, in this order, journalist autobiography, politician autobiography, biography, historian. But nothing beats going to a library and reading old magazines and newspapers d'époque.

If governments only built roads, I'd be happy. Unfortunately, they also make flags that don't fly... The dollar would have been spent anyway. To create jobs, government spending is probably the worst way. Every dollar the government spends means you (or someone else) has a dollar less to spend. More precisely, every thing the government buys means one less thing anyone else can buy. Hunh? Government spends our money and borrows from us. To us, it makes no difference.Imagine your neighbour uses your credit card to refurnish his living room. At the end of the month, you pay the bill. Your neighbour could have used your debit card and the result would have been the same. Are you worried about the interest rate? How does that change anything above? (Or, the Canadian government borrows at the lowest rate going. Imagine your credit card had an annual interest of 4%.) My point is that a government surplus/deficit is no measure of the fiscal competence of a politician. To be sexist, it matters little whether your wife buys stuff using your debit card or credit card. But it does matter how much stuff your wife buys. [What if she buys using your credit card when you don't have the money to pay the bill? Well, what happens if you can't pay your tax bill?] Please guys. I'm not simplistic. I'm asking you to understand this thing called "government". It is unlike any private corporation.

Should Bill Clinton, Geo. Bush (Jnr/Snr), Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair or Michael Moore get involved in a Canadian federal election? Why not? Dalton McGuintey, Jean Charest and Bernard Lord at least are Canadian citizens and presumably will have to make a final choice about where to put an X. This is just politics. (BTW, why are editorials in English newspapers not signed by the journalist? Do all members of the Globe & Mail editorial board support the Liberals?)

We all pay for health care. The Tories are in favour of public (state) insurance with private firms along with government organisations providing the service. That means everyone is covered and the bill is paid by the government (all taxpayers) but the service is provided by private business. The NDP wants all health services to be provided by government organized clinics and hospitals. (Not for profit which the NDP claim is cheaper.) The Liberals are not clear on thi sissue. Your suggestion that people pay for health services from their own pocket (as they buy food or shoes) is unrealistic. Even Americans don't buy health services this way. Health services and car accident repairs are all about insurance. Few if anyone self-insures. I bet even Bill Gates has health insurance. Why take the risk? IOW, to answer your point, everyone pays for their health care through an insurance scheme.

For the past few days, I've been in southern Ontario on business. I'm astonished by the number of people who have told me they will vote Liberal. I can understand Liberal voters in Quebec. It's a question of Canada. (In truth, I must wonder why the BQ has NO opposition and why federalists will vote for donkeys.) But Ontario? Or ROC? Harper has thrown this election away. Constantly, people in Ontario referred to abortion, gay rights, bilingualism as reasons not to vote Tory. These are social issues. One Tory said to me, "If the Liberals don't lose this election, then they'll never lose any election." Victory in this election was handed to Harper on a silver plate. What happened?

Private health care? In Canada, there are two ways to see this. State health insurance (covering everyone) with private supply of services. (The State pays the bill, you choose your doctor and clinic.) State health sector. The government operates and manages all hospitals, clinics and employs all doctors and nurses. (This is also called 'not-for-profit'.) Which do you mean?

I'm an old traditional. I'll go with CBC and Radio-Canada. I want to hear Bernard Derome's "Si la tendance se maintient..." Like going to a Chinese buffet with friends (when I don't want Chinese), I reckon that I paid the taxes so I should get the worth of my money.

Elections Canada forbids reports of exit polls, and reports of polls 48 hours (I think) before an election. (Elections Canada also requires that pollsters make public all technical details of polls within 24 hours of initial publication.) Welcome to the Nanny State!

Maritimers vote until 8:30 local time, and Columbians vote until 7 pm local time. The staggered hours by region are available here at Elections Canada. Canada has 4 1/2 hours difference: Pacific (BC), Mountain (Alta, Sask), Central (Man), Eastern (Ont/Que), Atlantic and Nfld. G & M Article

Moon:

Got you BigBlue:

The US president is charged with upholding the Constitution and "watching over" the security of the Republic. In this era, US presidents have taken this role very seriously. (In Canada, the equivalent might be the Quebec premier's basic task to ensure the French fact in North America.) When some scientists come along and say that they can devise an anti-missile shield to protect America, the US president will listen and give them a couple of billion to see what they come up with. It's cheap insurance. (The equivalent might be buying a couple of smoke alarms.) Even Clinton kept up research on this. In the original scheme as defense against the USSR with multiple warheads attacking simultaneously, the idea was ludicrous but I can see why Reagan went along with it; and not only as a bargaining chip. Bush Jnr has gone back to this because the threat now is one warhead from North Korea (or some other source). Given the "small" cost and even the small risk of large devastation, I think Bush Jnr has a fair argument. I don't know what Kerry's position is but I suspect he'll pursue research. Should Canada participate? Well, the US apparently will go ahead with this anyway so Canada should participate and at least know what is going on. We should make it plain to the US that we will put no money into it (or as little as necessary). Our participation should be limited to giving them access to our territory.