reasonoverpassion

If Rae and Leblanc bow out its over, anyway.

The American dream (aka the meritocracy) is crock. American are beginning to realize that now. Aside from entertainment or sports, few disadvataged people ever get rich. Those that do are so rare they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. How many Fortune 500 CEOs came from underprivledged backgrounds? Trickle down economics is also a crock. The rich get richer in America and the poor get poorer. Cut taxes for the rich and they don't share the wealth. They just keep it for themselves. Meanwhile the social infastructure of the poor areas just detoriates. Will New Orleans ever be rebuilt? The idea every American can own their home is crock. This one came crashing down as the banks who preyed on the poor, lent money to people who could never pay it back. Then when the bubble burst they got bailled out with taxpayers money. Now the poor suckers who bought into the American Dream are left out in cold--literally. American are also starting to question why they are only country in the developed world without state sponsored medical care. Why do millions of people have to pay for medical care (something that should be a human right) out of their own pocket? The reason is a narrow ideology which worships the market as the solution to any problem mankind has ever faced. The Republican fantasy cooked up by Reagan and promoted by the Bushes seems hollow to many Americans now. A new day is dawning in America and I am hopeful a once great nation can rise from their delusions and face the mulitide of social challenges brought on from years of neglect.

This has nothing to do with a back room and everything to do with moving ahead. Bob Rae is a man who recognizes his limitations. They are are profound: (1) He is an ex-premier of Ontario. This fact alone would him unpalatable to many who live east of Winnipeg. (2) He was Premier of Ontario at a significant economic downturn which neither he or his party had very much to do with. This doesn't matter he just happened to be Premier when the downturn happened, he is blamed for the downturn anyway. He lead a party that very few ministers that were talented enough to excel in their given portfolios. (3) He is a turncoat. Many Liberals don't like him because he belonged to NDP. Liberals are sick of leadership questions. Ignateff wants it, he is most qualified and should have the job. There's no conspiracy-- no backroom deals. just a weariness about leadership questions.

In US most of the Canadian populace would be labelled "pinkos". This includes anyone who thinks the Canada Healh Act is a good idea

We understand exactly who we are. We are opposed to arbitary removal of the right to strike. removal of pay equity legisltation, and removal of funds for smaller parties to have a voice in parliament. Harper should not have tried to push his neo-con agenda through at the time he thought he had a weak opposition. He has backed off of these things (for now) Let see if he tries again in 2009

First of all, I'm no Harper supporter. But the possibility for a CPC majority looks increasingly dim. The simple reason is Quebec. Harper has been doing a lot of work in Quebec. Lgically he knows the path to power is building a coalition of Canadian made of the following groups: (1) The reminants of the PC supporters in Altantic Canada (10 Votes) (2) Fortress Alberta (28 Votes) (3) B.C Interior and Frasier Valley (20 Votes) (4) Sask and Manitoba (20 Votes) Thats 78 votes, essentially the base he has to work from now. He weaker in Atlantic Canada that he should be... OK Westerners-- 78 seats 154 needed to win, Let look at Ontario Already have 44 Ontario seats in tradional support areas, Rural Eastern and Southern Ontatio. Need to make gains in the "905" Toronto bedroom communties, need to make gain in smaller Ontario cities such as London and Kitchener. Almost hopeless in 416, Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa--these areas are really hard for the CPC Need 20 seats more out of Ontario Thats 142. In Quebec appeal needs to made to "soft nationalist" voters in rural areas. This where the real damage has been done, denouncing BQ supporters etc. Almost anyone who would vote CPC in Quebec probably voted BQ at one time on another. He will be hard pressed to hang on to the 10 seats they have in Quebec. Now thanks to Harper's overblown rhetoric, they have been cut off and are back in the arms of BQ who looks the "true defender" of Quebec No majority for the CPC. Election was held today--another Conservative minority around 145 seats, in reality.

Give the kid a break. He was able to win in Papineau, a Montreal riding with one of the lowest incomes in Canada. This kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth related in some way to the people in this riding which has a large immigrant/ working class population. He was running against a fairly popular Haitan woman from the BQ. So he won a difficult riding. Now there's time to see what he is made of

Poor Stephan-- An academic who did not have ability to play politics. I'm sure he will be happier going back to academic life. Here are some fatal mistakes he made along the way: (1) Carbon Tax/Green Shift Never campaign on taxation!! Never say anything about taxes during an election campaign except telling the electorate you will abolish them (Chretien) or lower them (Harper). Did Mulroney campaign on bringing a new tax called the GST? No, he didn't talk about the GST during any election campaign, not one word. The mere mention of a new tax during an election is a political hari-kari. (2) You have to project desisive leadership. Does anyone question the force of the personality of Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or Harper? They were able to make their message clear without appearing to flop all over the place. Some people have had Dion has a problem with the English language. Well so did Chretien, in fact it was said he had a problem articulating in both official languages, but he never had a problem making his position on issues known. Does anyone one remember when Mulroney destroyed Turner, during the debate when Turner was questioned about putting through patronage appointments for Trudeau? Turner: "But I had no option" Mulroney: "You sir had an option, you could have said no" John Kerry was destroyed by Dubya because he was painted as indesisive. Too much of an "egghead" to take a stand on an issue. (3) You have to make people like you. Look at successful politicians: Bill Clinton, Dubya, Chretien, (folksy down to earth types) Trudeau, Obama (powerful intellect , charismatic, good speaker) Mulroney (smooth confident--yes people did like this) Stephan was never able to make this connection--Steve you also need to watch out for this one! A sweater vest and a handshake for your kid's first day at school doesn't cut it!

Essentially its an American idea. The purity of the common self made man. The frontiersman who educated himself in the wilderness away from the corruption of the old world or the dangerous Eastern cities. It finds expression in the image of Dubya. Here's a guy as blueblood New Englander as you can get, posing as simple "rube" from Crawford, Texas. Maybe Sarah Palin, the outsider Alaskan who some to clean up the moral corruption of Washington. Do people who live away from cities, or lack formal education have more virtue than those who do? Does any group have a corner on virtue?

The book is called The Essential Trudeau Edited by Ron Graham published in 1998 by M&S in Toronto--Just a group of quotes from PET. Trudeau did love this country and wasn't afraid to say so

Thanks Smallc--Here's another "Who speaks for Canada? Our strength lies in our national will to live and work together as a people. Weaken that will, that spirit of community and you weaken Canada. Weaken Canada, and you damage all the parts, no matter how rich some of those parts might be. My friends, you must stand up for Canada, we must see that there is a national government that has the courage to do so as well." Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Remarks, Confederation Dinner, Toronto, November 19, 1979

What are you talking about?? The vast majority of the G8 understand and accept as normal coalition governments. Its only foreign to Canadians because we subscribe to pure FPP. Introduce any form of proportional representation and coaltions become commonplace

The answer is NO to those who advocate separation rather than sharing, who advocate isolation rather than fellowship, to those who -basically-advocate pride rather than love, because love involves coming together and meeting others halfway, and working with them to build a better world. Pierre Elliot Trudeau Remarks, Paul Sauve Arena, Montreal, May 14, 1980

"Under certain circumstances there exists a right of nations to self-determination. But to claim this right without taking into account the price that will have to paid, without clearly demonstrating that is to the advantage of the whole nation, is nothing short of a reckless gamble. People do not exist for states; states are created to make it easier for people to attain some of their common objectives" Therefore, those who wish to undermine or to destoy the Canadian federal system must define clearly the risks involved and demonstrate that the new judical and political situation they want to establish would be in the general interest of our people. According to international law, people--in both the legal and the ethnic sense--can declare independence if they are dominated by an external power or subjugated by a terrible tyranny. Neither case applies to Quebec." Pierre Elliot Trudeau "Quebec and the Constitutional Problem"(unpublished), 1965; Federalism and the French Canadians

And now Central Canadians have to put up with these type of neo-con lectures from arrogant Westerners who think they can tell us how to run this country. The only thing they did for themselves was move to or be born on an arrid piece of desert with oil under it. "We're rich-- and we're right about everything because an oil boom is on" gets old after a while.

CPC supporters just can beleive or understand that not every Canadian is in love with Steven Harper. The cult of personality built around Harper is just plain scary. He seems to think it is his mission to dislodge the Liberals as the "natural governing party" This is to be done by borrow tactics from Republicans like Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. Negative campaigning, Harper as the "compasionate Conservative", targeting groups in society that are potential supporters while demonizing your "enemies" etc... Conspriacy theories like the CBC or the elites are "brainwashing" everyone to vote Liberal border on the sur-real. A personal favorite is that no one supports this coalition and we all want a CPC government because they have more seats than other party. A minority goverment is defined as a "mandate to govern". Now we have polls which "prove Canadian want a majority. Polls don't count for anything, and as we all are aware, thing can change dramatically in politics in a short period of time

Under normal circumstances parliament is prorogued after the completion of the legislative agenda set in the speech from the throne. Parliament remains prorogued until the summoned again by the monarch or her representative. Then a new session of parliament is called (usually after an election). This parliamentary session has not passed a single bill. So we can say we are in a "crisis" Why should parliament be suspended? For how long should it be suspended? Even if parliament is prorogued until January how can Harper govern? What party will agree to support any bill sponsored by the Conservatives? As the days pass, the rhetoric from the Tories becomes more shrill. They have already alienated any friends they may have had in this parliament. Does the Prime Minister even have the right to ask for parliament to be suspended? To me this looks like executive power which has no place in a parliamentary system. Prorogue parliament because "I do not have the confidence of the house" is not a good enough reason in my opinion. So now its one of two choices: Coaltion Government or Election

What?? When the wheels really came off the bus was when good old Mike Harris was in change with the support of Guy Gionro, Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty. We all remember Jim Flaherty's brilliant ideas to tackle homelessness: appointing "special constables" and making homelessness illegal. We all remember John Baird's "get tough on welfare cheats" approach overstating the extent of welfare fraud to undermine public confidence in the system and "workfare"--more about a mean spirited attempt to kick people who are down rather than helping them to get off the system. We all remember the assult on the civil service and the unrest which plagued this province. Hopefully this type of divisive politics is dead and buried in this county. Heaven help Canada if these guys ever get a majority. You might as well name Canada "Alabama North" Taking away the right to strike for civil servants is just the tip of the iceberg. Private prisons, "right-to-work" legislation, tieing the hands of judges with legislation like "three strikes and you're out", restarting of the whole aborton debate and the list goes on

There's another "showdown" between a PM and GG in Canadian History between Lord Byng and William Lyon MacKenzie-King (known as the King-Byng affair) Essentially the PM wanted the GG to dissolve the house but Byng refused to do so. King wanted the house dissolved to avoid being defeated on a motion of censure. King felt he no longer had the confidence of the house (this was a Liberal minority government with Progressive Party support) and wanted an election. Byng felt it was his duty to offer the Convervatives a chance to form a government which they did. The Liberals were able to re-enage their Progressive allies and defeat the new Conservtive government. So the GG has real power under some circumstances which is supposed to be above the political process. Firing her would be seen as an afront to the role of the monarch and dragging her role down to puppet of the ruling party rather than Queen's representatve.

The Conservative spin on the Coalition: (1) The coalition is somehow undemocratic. The Conservatives were given a minority government which means they won more seats than other party but not enough seats to have a clear majority. In order to pass legislation you need a majority and how you get it is to convince other parties to vote with you. When you can't do this, you can't make a minority parliament work for you anymore. I know Harper wishes he had a majority but it just didn't happen. Thats how it works in Westminister style democracies. Thats how our political system is run. (2) People didn't vote for the Coalition. Yes people did vote for coalition. They voted for all the parties that make up the coalition. A minority parliamnet is about finding common ground. If you can do that, you can govern. (3) The coalition is unstable. Not more unstable that a party who now a minority of seats in the parliament and no partners to work with. (4) The coalition will be fiscally irresponisble. The last election is over and if people truly beleived this, the Convervatives would have their majority. Enough people obviously did not believe this and voted for the Liberals, Bloc and NDP. The Ontario Legislature in 1985 happened the same way. Liberals and NDP came together made an agreement, kept to the agreement for two years and were able to govern. The sky did not fall and no plague of locusts visited Ontario in the years 1985-87.

hmm Slim Guess it kinda depends on how long you think the crisis might last. My concern is making the same mis-steps the Japanese made in response to their economic crisis. "Is Japan's 'lost decade' a window to the future?" by Marcus Gee has me thinking this way. Unfortunately the article isn't available on line anymore from the Globe and Mail, unless you want to pay for it. There is real dangers in the huge bubble created by the subprime mess. Now that its burst many bets are off about what going to happen as a result.

Read the article in the Post by William Watson, Slim. Its a good article but it doesn't change by mind about what needs to be done. I was never a big fan of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Harper's reponse has "Chicago School" written all over it. We are now experiencing the consquences of monitarist policy on the economy.

Sorry I can't agree with you. They don't need to adopt the same platform. The Liberals and NDP just need to find enough common ground to work together--thats all. Thats how coalition governments in democracies all over the world work. It is less common in Canada with our "first-past-the-post" system but the principles are the same. Example: Israel is current governed by a coalition of 3 political parties. All 3 do not share exactly the same platform but have enough common ground to form a government.

I doubt the dollar or the sky will fall. Nobody in the world equates the collaspe of a minority government with a "Banana Republic" The Liberals have a proven track record of prudent fiscal management and the world knows it. Guess you never heard of Keynes eh? Governments need to stimulate the economy in times of recession. This is the time when governments need to spend money. Letting the crisis "run its course" and doing nothing only prolongs the crisis. Let the goverments tackle the deficit in good ecomonic time like Paul Martin did

What?? the lowest vote in Canadian history?? For the record here are the facts on the popular vote for the last election: Conservative 37.65% Liberal 26.26% Bloc Québécois 9.98% New Democrats 18.18% Green 6.78% So the coalition would actually represent 44.44% of the votes cast.