bluegreen

Isn't it wonderful how money + soundbites are more important than substantial debate in politics? Please tell me thatthis bothers you, at least a bit.

doesn't change the fact that online polls cannot conceivably reflect the population. I sell to rural and older demographic, and you'd be amazed how many aren't even online

Ha Ha! I predict that he will abandon this principle pretty damn quick now! I suppose you have read that Elizabeth May might be in line for a Senate appointment? (Obviously to clear the way for a cabinet post) I'm a GPC supporter, but sweet jesus, what a mess! It seems that nobody can keep their feet on the ground anymore. I was feeling smug about the GPC's prospects from all this mess ( and I confess worried about Canada), but now even the level headed Liz has lost her mind.

Thanks for the link jdobbin , I've been dying to see poll numbers. The problem is that this poll is online. The last election showed just how crappy and unreliable such polls are. I'll grant it's probably broadly indicative. Divided country indeed, with enormous 'don't know' respondents. The CPC will now kick into gear with bigtime advertising, to take advantage of that whopping 24%. No problem funding it with issue based donations from the Alberta heartland. I bet they raise $10mm this week. They will win the air war hands down.

I disagree with your fist point. The GG is bound by convention, as is the Queen. Her 'decision' will be made by legal advisers, based on convention. For the rest, it is too late for the Conservatives in this 40'th Parliament. The country will survive just fine. It's a political crisis of the first magnitude, but not a constitutional crisis.

Now you're making me feel old, as I remember, and lived through all those as an anglo quebecker. ( Actually, when the Conservative Party splintered into the Bloc, I was happily ensconced in Toronto) The article is CPC Spin. Most foreigners are either used to far more macchiavellian Parliamentary splits, or if they're Americans politely (dis)interested in their neighbours strange political system. I'd cite sources in the US press, but frankly they're all pretty banal, and not worth pursuing.

Yes and no, Prorogation would mean no new legislation. Doesn't mean that government ceases. Orders in council, etc. Lots and lots could get done. Don't forget that the CPC had no intention of doing much until a spring budget anyway. Repercussions would surely fall on Harpers head though.

Define long. It minds me of the old saw that a week is a long time in politics ;-) They can craft a legislative agenda that covers the common ground in 6 months or so. The Liberals will then have a new leader. The NDP will have rebuilt a little. They can then decide if they have more to gain by splitting up, or keeping on for another 6 months or so. I think that the Bloc is in trouble no matter what happens. An election now, or an election after Dion is replaced. Contrary to many peoples opinions, they will be in a weak position, as is proper. We'll see you back at the polls sometime between July 2009, and June 2010 is my best guess. But don't forget, a week is a long time, so don't quote me if I come back with a radically different number next week.

I think that the GG may take note of any letters sent, but the legal basis for the governments existence lies in the fact they enjoy the confidence of the house. That the house is apparently ready and willing to withdraw that confidence ought to be pertinent when considering a request to dissolve Parliament, but I do not think it is so relevant when the government simply means to enjoy the normal priviledges, such as to prorogue the house. Oh dear, I'm not sure about the legal grounds here. Still, it seems reasonable doesn't it? I'm certainly not interested in anybodies partisan advantage here. The fact is that we live in a representative democracy, and the arcane rules of Parliament are what will govern. If there's a gap in the practical application of these rules, it is time to set a precedent. I will bet any taker that the Governor General will make her decisions in a very finely reasoned decision. I think that we will all be able to look back on this and be proud of the institution of GG. Unless of course we are so blinkered by partisan considerations that we don't care about the future of our institutions. History will decide, not this forum.

I don't think it meaningful to focus on the person of the GG, it's the office that counts. The Conservative government currently enjoys the confidence of the house. That means that a request to prorogue would almost certainly be granted, because it would be within the Governments rights to request it. If the GG failed to do so, then I suspect we would be headed for republican status pretty quickly, and it would be a crisis. I'm not prepared to indulge in rhetoric, or pursue this highly unlikely outcome. Whether there is a motion of no-confidence or not,I do not think that there will be a crisis if she refuses the Prime Ministers request to dissolve Parliament and call an election for one simple reason. The government is in the minority, and the GG would have every reason to believe that an alternate government could be formed that would enjoy the confidence of the house. This obviates the need for an election. There were not one, but two quite recent elections, and there is definitely an alternative to an election. Please remember that we are talking about the very first moments of government here. Whatever happens, I believe that bringing the personal circumstances of the GG into the discussion is inflamatory, incidental, and somewhat slanderous. I doubt that she would take the guardianship role she holds lightly. Her position exists solely for the purpose of doing the right thing in this, and like circumstances, and I am prepared to believe she will do right by her adopted country.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA! Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho HO! It seems that the shoe is on the other foot now. I watched aghast as the same crew of nasty Cons played the politics of division in Ontario. They enraged the unions, who do after all have a legal right of association, and a long history in Canada. They baited all opponents, and played RUTHLESS power politics with Toronto, as they serial raped the city. Unions are not neat and tidy, and often City politics is fractious, but Ontario PC's enraged them to distract and polarise the electorate, while encouraging their rural and suburban base. It was repellent to watch them play such games, seemingly for fun and profit. Flaherty played the exact same cards here when he attempted to abolish the rights of public sector unions to strike. He baited the opposition with electoral funding, and failed to meet the early promise of consultation in a minority government. With no attempt whatsoever to consult, he made a bold assumption that despite lacking a majority mandate, he could govern with an iron fist without the confidence of Parliament. For once, Churchill showed up at Munich instead of Chamberlain, and the straw man was knocked down. Nobody cries much when a bully gets his comeuppance, and frankly, the CPC SCREWED THEMSELVES. I am looking forward to a productive minority government until next summers election, when the CRAP will be banished to the backwoods where they belong

Are you seriously promising to leave the country? My only fear is that there may be no place where you are appreciated, and you won't feel guilty. Will that mean we are stuck with you? Perhaps you are not irredeemable if you are still capable of feeling guilt. That guilt you feel is your conscience telling you that you have been casting the first stone, and if you're not careful YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!

That's an interesting invented statistic. Is it a lie, or do you have a reputable source for it? Actually, you do hang around areas where gays are normal. It's just when they see knuckledraggers approaching, who advertise their blind hatred, they fear for their safety and hide their sexual proclivities. The Charter rights you deride are those which promise everybody in this country the freedom to do pretty much what they like, so long as they don't bother other people. The first such charter was in fact the Magna Carta, which was the first in a very long chain of events that led to democratic, and free form of government under which we live. You go by the name of Mr. Canada, I guess your' pride has nothing to do with our way of life though. No-one is locking you up for your' homophobic views. I will even defend your' rights, as my forbears did at the point of the bayonet. At the same time, I'll happily exercise my right to call you a bigot, and sundry other things.

Where to start? How about, get your facts straight. Ontario Hydro, and Quebec Hydro were formed by nationalising generating and transmission companies. They are both state owned. Nuclear power, and power generation are to a small extent both being shifted into private hands. The Nuclear is worrying, because by it's very nature, a corporation has limited liability. I really wonder if the taxpayer won't be left holding the baby when it starts becoming more expensive to decommission plants, and dispose of spent fuel, that will remain poisionous for thousands of years, or will the private corporations that enjoy the revenues today really put aside the $$ to deal with waste containment in the year 3,000 AD? I get my electricity bill every month. Lo and Behold, GST is collected. Last I checked, that was a Federal tax. As far as the export revenues from Hydro power, governments don't just tax them, they put the whole bloody shooting match into their pockets. So it goes into provincial coffers, and not Federal. So what? It's called division of powers. Why did I even bother to respond? There wasn't a single worthy sentence in this comment, other than the fact it was irritating enough to delay my going to bed for 10 minutes. As far as nationalising Oil and Gas,... well another truly stupid idea. There is absolutely no way I trust a Parliamentary democracy to do anything but screw it up. Regulate, sure. Tax the hell out of it, definitely! It belongs to US, not the guy who sticks a straw into a likely spot. Reward him for sticking straws into the right spot, but not too much. Don't forget to charge him a hefty price for the damage (s)he inflicts on the commons while he's at it.

It's a little dis-ingenious to quote article 5. The Taliban gave shelter to Bin Laden, but didn't participate in any attack on the US. I remember well the events of the day, and while everybody (All the NATO allies, plus others) seemed to think it was a good idea to clobber the Taliban, I think that article 5 was a quick justification to involve NATO. Please don't pretend that NATO hasn't changed beyond recognition. For the past 20 years I have been listening to, and reading arguments about 'How can we make NATO relevant in the post Cold War world?' That discussion has been all about how 'we' can expand the mission, expand the membership, etc. Kindly tell me in what respect Serb actions in Bosnia/Kosovo called for NATO intervention? NATO was a handy hammer. It was picked up and used. Ditto for Afghanistan. NATO is the only effective joint command, and multi-national military force in the world today. The reason for this is because the cold War mission was so unmistakably serving the interests of the alliance members, and it was probably a matter of survival that it be effective. That's why NATO worked, and was effective. Given that the cold war dangers have receded, many of the NATO members will be re-evaluating their security needs. I would suggest that over time, not next year, or even the next decade, continued use of the NATO 'hammer' as a matter of convenience will discredit the alliance, and undermine it's central function. To our potential detriment I might add. As you pointed out, that is water under the bridge, and here we are. I stated that Afghanistan isn't a Nation. (As opposed to a state). If you accept the definition of a nation as a cohesive group, that self identify as such, through shared language, institutions, religion, and/or culture, it would be very hard indeed to define Afghanistan as a nation. My point was that there is not much in the way of unifying influences across the state of Afghanistan. Your long term mission strikes me as being one of building a state, with all the unifying institutions that will bring peace and security, and ultimately prosperity. How is it possible to graft a unitary state onto a tribal society? It would take generations, and I don't believe it's possible. I empathise with you. I would hate to have to come up with a winning strategy and tactics to bring security to that troubled land. If it is truly our part to rebuild it, because we are responsible for the outcome of our intervention, then some really drastic changes to our assumptions will be required. Remember Palestine after the war? My grandfather served there as an Intelligence officer seconded from the Royal Marines. He was a crusty old bigot, but he'd fought his way through Africa, Sicily, the mediterranean, and the Normandy. He was horrified that his military service was capped by such a mess. Shooting teenagers, and torturing old men wasn't his idea of how a soldier should soldier, but it was the result of an impossible mission. Palestine was a disaster because the assumption made about the UK's ability to impose a humane and secure settlement on Palestine was fundamentally flawed. We live with the consequences of this failure today, and look at the dangers we face as a result. If we are to learn from the past, we ought to consider carefully our ways, means, and intentions in Afghan. It will haunt us for generations to come if we seek to impose the impossible, by force of arms.

May has strengths and weaknesses. She made her greatest mistake immediately after her Leadership win, when she refused to accomodate David Chernshenko, and his organisers. She filled the ranks with some very incompetent people of unquestionable, and unquestioning loyalty to herself personally. Chernushenko had surrounded himself with all the very best organisers, campaign managers, and staffers. He didn't propose to discard Jim Harris' legacy, simply to displace Jim from the top slot, and do a better job of training and mentoring the grassroots. Elizabeth had a marvelous chance to marry her own very positive media, and public image, with a solid, and experienced core of Campaigners and strategists. She publicly displayed her own political ignorance when she refused to name Chernushenko deputy leader, and thus alienated him, and the vast majority of the skills base with him. The morons. like Sharon Labchuk, that she was left with couldn't plan a picnic, let alone a campaign. I'm not joking, I've seen Labchuk trying to plan a pizza night for a Campaign team, and it wasn't a pretty sight. Don't totally discount Elizabeth though. She built the Sierra club into one of the heaviest hitting NGO's in Canada, and she will probably learn something from her mistakes. She'll have to figure out that you have to take good advice from people you don't trust on occasion, especially if those you do trust don't have a clue.

All very well said. I disagree that Chretien was a loser though. He was the most succesful, and machiavellian Canadian politician for half a century. It was beautiful to watch him co-opt so many promising politicians from the other side(s), like Kim Campbell to lala land, and Charest right off the Federal scene. Stephen Lewis to a cushy posting, plus a number of others. Harper took a leaf from his book when he duped Manley, the biggest single threat to the CPC, into immolating himself. Iggy is almost as dangerous to the CPC as Manley, and he will probably be the next leader. I find it interesting that you consider Rae to be a contender, because, despite being an Ontarian myself, and having an almost visceral anti Rae reaction, I was really impressed by Rae the intelligent attack dog in the last election. I would pay good money to see him skewer Harper in a televised election debate. He is as brilliantly sarcastic as Trudeau in his prime. Not enough to beat Iggy though, because they will both have to mute their true 'charms' and it will boil down to the better machine. Looking to the 2010 election, Ignatieff will win former PC's back from the CPC, and it will only take 2% of the CPC support to tip the balance, due to how small the Reform base is. Quebec loves a winner, and that will give the Lib's a dozen extra seats in la Belle Province. No-one will add up to a majority though for the forseeable future, but I would lay even money that Ignatief will have a strong minority in 2 more years. Parliament will have to adapt to this fundametal shift to minority, and/or coalition governments.

Very good! 100%! Municipalities should, as a matter of course have party associations. As it stands, the levels of corruption, incompetence, and self dealing at the municipal level are disgusting. Party discipline is badly needed. The Provinces, (at least Ontario) wants weak municipalities because it enhances their patronage powers. Greens are 'wink wink' doing it as we speak, but a 4 year municipal electoral cycle makes evolutionary change slow. No mind, we're patient. When you asked if any minority had ever appointed another parties ministers, it's generally called coalition government. In a land of perpetual minorities, it will have to become the norm. The Greens really are policy driven, and it will be hard NOT to turn to them if they form the balance, and are happy to work with anybody. I mentioned before that the GPC is made up of refugees from all the other parties. It makes for some truly eye opening interactons within the party. I have witnessed many negotiated compromises between button down collar types, and radicals at the barricades within the GPC to let old prejudices stand in the way. Damn, the GPC is good at the politics and strange bedfellows thing.

I tend to concurr, but with caveats. First, assuming the leadership change yields Rae, or Ignatieff, both have much stronger, and better organised teams than the whole party did under Dion. They are the inheiritors of the Chretien, and Martin cliques, and could install a 'New and Improved' Liberal Party within a month. Neither put out their all for the National campaign just concluded, so a Liberal minority would have been a miracle under Dion. Had either of them been leader last year, then we wouldn't have had an election in 2008. Whichever of them wins, the other will play ball, because it will have been a long term decision, not an interim one like Dion. No-one can predict whether the CPC has reached it's zenith, but it seems likely. They obviously have to broaden their appeal still further, and a four way electoral split will play less and less to their advantage over the coming 2 years. I suspect that 2008 was Harpers golden chance, never to be repeated. All bets are off of course, if they really go down on bended knee before Quebec. I hope they do, just so that I can sit back and watch Alberta, and backwoods Ontario boiling over!

Under the Act, there is no legal restriction whatsoever on where a donor resides, so long as they are ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN CANADA. (Not the same as registered to vote) That's why I said EDA's are perfect places to stash a fundraising team, they can VOIP call anywhere in Canada. The physical location of the transfer is therefore meaningless.

I wouldn't read too much into this. It's probably an Ignatieff loyalist phone bank, or fundraising team that was transferring the take from their election efforts to the central party. Local EDA's, solidly controlled by a party faction are a convenient way for a power block within a party to build fundraising organisations. They can legally accept donations, and subsequently transfer them pretty well wherever they want, to campaigns, Provincial Divisions, leadership campaigns, other EDA's, or as in this case, the National party. Allow me to share a funny anecdote about the pitfalls of this device. I once saw a similarly contrived EDA fundraising machine, where a competing faction staged a raid on the EDA. The target EDA had traditionally been weak to the point of nearly defunct. The local EDA constitution was old, and poorly written. It allowed all party members, irrespective of where they lived to exercise voting rights at the executive election. At the next executive election, the sparse local members were surprised when their worst enemies showed up in droves, elected a dissident executive, and promptly transferred two years worth of hard won funds out. There ain't no cure for stupid! If the Liberals did something crooked, I would be very surprised if it left a paper trail $185,000 wide.

I don't say nothing matters, I think it's vitally important. I think that capping donations, capping spending, a strict interpretation of spending, and publicly funded elections will help to re-focus our electoral process on what counts. Who has the best plans, people, and policies to govern the Nation. Expect smart operators to co-opt the media to an even greater extent, and the armies of lawyers who get involved in politics will be busy gaming it, but if you want to bring the political process out into the open, then these measures would bring the job started with the 2004 elections finance act to it's logical conclusion.

In Ontario, that would be political suicide to run under any party banner. It is a significant wedge, because there is a tradition of keeping party politics out of Municipal politics. Any politician who publicly acknowledged a party affiliation would make the front page, and lose about 20% or more of the electorate. For example, Mayor Miller in Toronto is pretty well known to have dipper affiliations, but he has to remain non-partisan. He also has quiet links to the Greens, but publicly he is, and must remain neutral. Yes, it takes time to build a Party. I have to say though that the Greens were a debating club 6 years ago, with membership in the hundreds. Membership has grown HUGELY, although we're electorally challenged because it is very evenly distributed across the country. We'll go from 40 well organised EDA's, with good volunteer bases to 200+ for the (presumed) 2010 election. You won't find many Greens who expect to win any majorities in our lifespan. Most Greens have policy objectives, not a lust for power. I will bet you good money though that within ten years, a Canadian minority government will find it expedient to appoint one or two GPC ministers, more depending upon growth in electoral strength. BTW, I doubt that we'll see any majority governments for a long time. The Greens will continue to win votes from all parties, including the CPC, and the splits will mitigate against majorities. That's deliberate, and effective, as you can see looking at the small print over the last three elections.

My apologies, yes, you are right. It has been a fair criticism of the GPC in the past that they can promise anything, because they've never yet had to deliver the goods. There are a lot of GPC members who sit on municipal councils here and there, but of course explicit party affiliations don't really exist at the municipal level in Ontario at least, except in a few instances. I disagree though that it is hard to balance a budget. You spend less than you raise. You build cabinet consensus as to what is needful spending, and taxes. If that fails to meet your target, then it's time to step on some toes. You cannot compromise your principles though, just because it's uncomfortable. It's not much of a principle if it's so readily discarded eh?

Are you arguing that spending limits are more important because they are the direct link to the electorate? Donation limits, for example, reduced the pervasive influence of public sector unions on the NDP. The NDP adapted quickly, and I think are more responsive to their small funders. Donation limits also crippled the Liberals, due to their prior dependence upon large corporate donations. The Liberals haven't seemed to notice yet that they have to change their fundraising model, but they will soon enough. Before donation limits, Chartered banks, for example, covered all their bets by donating large amounts to both major parties. Normally the Lib's got twice as much, because they were normally in power. Note that the PC's got their Bankers donations topped up when in power. If donation limits didn't exist, then I would bet that this practice of hedging the bets would continue. Is there really any difference between a donor buying the election for one party, or a more subtle donor buying the affections of all contenders? I don't believe that spending limits are, or ever will be truly effective by themselves. Whatever the rules, they will be gamed. If a Party, or EDA has excess money, they will figure out how to spend it. Third Party spending, pre-writ spending, under the covers spending, pseudo fundraising spending. I have seen evidence all these things in the three federal elections since the revised elections finance act. In the next Federal election, only stupid campaign managers, who don't care about winning will fail to circumvent spending limits, unless, of course, they cannot get more money.