August1991

I cannot believe that I expressed sympathy to the Liberal Party of Canada. Several hours after PM PM/s French debate, I retire my sympathy - for what it was worth.

C'était Duceppe, le menteur.Duceppe was the liar, but none had the time or ability to explain this. (I am not defending the CSL or flags...)

There is some truth to the idea that the defeat of the Liberals, is the defeat of Canada. But I'm open to suggestions. Martin tergervisait. Layton was a pêteux de broue. Harper était un bloke. None could take on Duceppe and counter his nonsense. This is a Quebec problem. On va s'en occuper.

I happen to respect MapleSyrup. But when MS claims that Harper bombed in the French debate, I feel sad. PM PM died in the French debate. And Canada, in a way, died too. Partisan MS didn/t notice.

In the French debate, PM PM was humiliated. Among the other three, IMV, Layton was the only person to respect PM PM. To his credit, PM PM did not seek a sympathy vote. IMHO, this situation is both his fault and Liberal members' fault. This election should never have been called.

Look, Duceppe accomplished all he wanted, but Martin changed nothing in the French debate. IMV, Harper was honest. IMO, watch this English debate. I want to see all.

Look at the Duceppe and Martin results. Be serious. That's it, that's all.

Harper: Say the same but in English. Layton: Your accent will be better. But the audience less receptive. Duceppe: Relax. Martin: You missed Duceppe. Aim for Harper. Overall: It's an interesting format. Can you keep on message? Credibly?

I know you neither personally. I have disagreed with Maple Syrup often. I may disagree, but MS' posts are honest. To my knowledge, MS is not a liar. BQSupporter, I want satisfaction.

The BQ will get its support in the ridings where the Yes won. But even partially francophone Montreal is federalist.BQS, everyone one knows that in the next referendum, the franco vote must be strong enough to overcome the anglos and the allos. BQS, all ROC people on this forum will use, to your and my mind, bizarre, incoherent, unfair arguments to defend their right to be "Canadian" against the overwhelming "American" onslaught on this continent. Use the same arguments to defend your cause. You won't win them here, ces arguments, mais les faire, ça fait du bien! La vérité existe...

AF, the BQ will get its support in rural Quebec, but not Montreal ridings.The BQ, according to Montreal and Toronto media, seem to be "nationalists" or "separatists". In fact, they just want to continue to live the way they do. This is a very, very long tradition in New France. Ever careful, they seek the best way to ensure this. BQ is obvious. This Harper guy is curious.

While watching this debate, I wondered: First, there was a clear voice missing. What would Stéphane Dion say to Gilles Duceppe, and indeed to all this? Second, it is too bad Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe can't work together to do the good they want to do. Duceppe is a realist; Harper an idealist. (And true, together they would bankrupt Canada. But what a way to go!) Third, once the four politicians were comfortable with the format, they were not afraid to express their opinions. Fourth, I have never watched a French debate in federal politics where, overall, the language quality was so good.

Pure demagoguery (all this money is in the federal budget). But it works, and Martin had no clear answer. Why? And I expected more questions on the CSL deal, less on the EI surplus. But Duceppe got it right, overall. Martin had in effect no answer to any of these questions. (He attempted to answer the CSL deal by talking about foreign firms. Duceppe pushed him on the EI surplus. Trudeau and Chretien would have hit those out of the park. Martin couldn't.) I was very, very surprised. Is PM PMartin poorly advised? He needs one line answers. Note to NDP: Imitate the BQ in the English debate.

Well, I just watched this debate, and spin, on TVA. Super Bowl, Cock Fight? Here's my call. Duceppe did best - haut les mains. Martin barely survived. In a weird way, Layton connected with many people but won no votes. Harper is obviously no ogre, but he's not Shrek. He's a straight bloke! (A BQ vote is safe now. A minority Harper is OK.) The format is strange but good. It took the three anglos an hour to feel comfortable. The last hour was better than the first. It is strange to watch one attack another and then another politely agree with a third (as Layton stepped aside to let Duceppe query Martin). Like our threads but speeded up. My spin? Duceppe on Martin: "He had the chance to answer on this , this and this question. He didn't." Harper with Martin: "Is Canada's health system better now than in 1993?" Then, Martin's splutter: "Some parts are better..."

It's not as bad as it looks Greg.

Some people seek out a biased media to confirm their beliefs. And I guess CanWest also tells people what they want to hear since CanWest is in the media business for profit. (The CBC on the other hand doesn't face this problem and so is open to manipulation.) My point is different. Most people devote little time to understanding public issues because these efforts lead to no personal benefit. People devote effort to looking for a job; they do not devote effort looking for Harper's hidden agenda.

Argus, the interesting question is if Harper gets more seats but Martin still thinks he can face the House. (I think that would only be possible if the NDP has the balance of power.) Would the GG agree?

Why? What's the connection? We should pay taxes and the government should hire people but not as a job-creation scheme. The change must be incremental. But when taxes represent about half of income and when government employees represent about 25% of the labour force, we've gone too far. This is the primary reason I tend to support the Tories.

Willy, I agree with you. Any method of knowing what is good and what is bad is open to dispute. Someone invariably has a different view of what's right and what's wrong. So, you have a God and the Bible to determine the true right way and the true wrong way. (BTW, which God and which Testament are you referring to?)My take on what is good and what is bad does not require God, and everyone can agree on it. Give it some thought if you will. I think I can get everyone's agreement that smashing (squandering) your computer is "bad". You'll lose a computer and everyone else is unaffected.By the same logic, if you find a new way to get to work in the morning that saves you 15 minutes, then that's "good" - and we all can agree it's good. (Assuming of course that your new route doesn't somehow cause delays for others.)

I must take issue with this statistic because it is so erroneous and so common.First of all, Walmart has huge revenues - but the wholesale costs of its goods are also high. In other words, value added should be the measure of corporate size, not gross revenue. One way would be to look at the number of employees. (IOW, all of your subsequent data and reasoning are meaningless.) Second, this country vs. corporation comparison glosses over one distinction and then ignores a critical difference. The distinction is between a country and the State (government). There is a critical difference between corporations and the State. My relationship with all corporations is voluntary. (I can buy elsewhere, work elsewhere). My relationship with the Canadian government is involuntary. (Well, I guess I could emigrate.) Third, corporations and governments don't exist in any real sense. They are composed of individual people who each act in their own way. Public corporations must answer to shareholders; the famous bottom line. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll knows how it wonderfully focusses the mind. IMV, this is the best morality. Real principles do not actually exist? Do airplanes fly? Why? Einstein's theory of relativity applies in the physical sciences. I don't think he meant it to be applied in the social sciences. And anyway, even Einstein spoke about frames of reference.

This sadly reflects the perception of many people in Quebec who are simply unable to contemplate the NDP or the Tories as viable alternatives to the Liberal.More fundamentally, it reflects the neverending, deep divide in Quebec between "separatists" and "federalists" with neither side able to dominate. This single issue influences virtually every other discussion. This is not healthy. Lastly, this division in Quebec is frighteningly fantastical. Until a majority of Quebecers are prepared to vote in favour of complete sovereignty, the idea of negotiating an association with ROC is a non-starter. When Norway left Sweden, when the Baltic states left the USSR, they did it completely and quickly. That's what sovereignty is.

Harper has stated in English and French several times that this was not a Quebec scandal; it was a Liberal scandal.Informed people in English Canada understand that. The Liberals did not make people in Quebec look silly. The Liberals made themselves look like crooks. This "Sponsorship Scandal" resembles the "Pacific Scandal" (that brought down Macdonald) and the "Customs Scandal" (that brought down King).

The correct term is Meech Lake which intended to reconcile the Quebec provincial government with the 1982 constitution.I doubt that Harper would want to start a Constitution negotiation now. (Although if Senate reform were included, there could be a justification.) The BQ on the other hand would never negotiate the Constitution on terms acceptable to the Tories. The fact of the matter is that in the current circumstances, our Constitution is almost impossible to amend on anything substantive. There will be no alliance or coalition. Duceppe has said that he will provide support on a case-by-case basis. The only stumbling block so far is Duceppe's insistence on all that pork to be doled out to Bombardier. Harper wants to stop that kind of nonsense.The Tories could in fact govern using Lib votes for some situations and BQ votes for others. Lastly, the Libs might try to use this "potential coalition" as a vote-getter in Ontario. IMV, these threats don't work anymore; certainly not one predicated on Quebec independence. The BQ and the PQ are perceived as pure bluff now.

Both these arguments depend on the premise that people are stupid and can't see through whatever bias to form their own opinion. For things that matter, I happen to think ordinary people are extremely smart. The problem is that an ordinary person only gets one vote that will change SFA in the grand scheme of things. Why bother forming intelligent opinions when your vote is pointless? Better to devote energies to seeking a suitable significant other, angling for a promotion or figuring out how to pay down the mortgage faster.

To say that the BQ does not favour the sovereignty of Quebec is absurd. True, Duceppe has stated that this election is not a referendum. That view is more common in Western Canada. It is much less common in Ontario or the Maritimes. I think this explains in part the reticence of many in Eastern Canada to leave the Liberal fold. That remark is disingenuous BQS and you know it.