gordiecanuk

We're obviously not fighting for democracy and human rights...if that were the case we wouldn't be enjoying friendly relations with so many undemocratic nations which abuse human rights. Anyone who honestly believes that probably believed the Soviet Union when they said they were fighting to free Afghanis from opression and to improve women's rights...Most knew they were after their resource, natural gas and oil, that's why the US hired, trained and backed the likes of Bin Laden....I guess it depends on who it is dispensing the Kool Ade which determines whether people will drink.

Ontarians get double screwed with this...not only will we have 21 more "do nothing" MPs in Ottawa, we'll be getting 21 more in Queen's Park as well. Harris' "fewer politicians act"...the best thing Mikie ever did for Ont, or so I thought at the time...it has Queen's Park ridings mirror those in the House of Commons. When it was enacted it meant fewer MPPs for us, now it'll mean more. Great!

A tasty lie is often preferable to a nasty truth Ontario...anyone pointing it out, call them un-patriotic.

There's more at stake here than was the case in Vietnam and the so called 'domino theory'. Afghanistan has a huge supply of natural gas, and the Caspian Oil Basin is said by many to be this planet's last great El Dorado. The southern part of Afghan is vitally important as a pipeline route to get that gas and oil westward. When the Soviets went in it was for the same reasons we're being told...fighting terrorism, improving human rights....but everyone knew that was bogus, that's why we boycotted the 80 Moscow Olympics.

Bull Sheet!!! Increase the staff at the constituency offices then, no more elected officials. Years back without jet travel, cell phones or blackberries...people managed just fine. Now in our modern era of communication and travel we don't need to be adding more backbench MPs. Its not like they have much say in policy making anymore, that's all handled out of the PMO with political consultants doing a lot of the work.

Great...more back bench MPs to pound on desks, that's just what Canada needs. Our house of commons is almost the same size as the US House, and our Senate is bigger. Yeah...this makes sense??? Our neighbour with a population about 10x greater than our own, and we've got the same size government. We don't need more politicians, we need less.

I'm not voting...both options strike me as draconian.

Voters here gave McGuinty a pass and re-elected him to a majority. Of course when you're told the books are balanced, and walk into a 5 billion deficit its hard to keep promises. McGuinty's government passed a law requiring the AG to audit the books before any future elections so we won't have that kind of mess again. The Tories might have been able to balance the books and wipe out the deficit if they'd be re-elected......they gave away the 407 toll hi-way for a song, so maybe they might've had a garage sale dumping other revenue generating assets for next to nothing...Kind of like what Flaherty is proposing now.

This is a real tough one...its easy to type away on the internet and call CAW/UAW members overpaid and all that...but to me that's kicking a man when he's down. Sure sure, I can just hear some saying now...I wish I was that down, making the money those guys make. Thing is, lifestyles and identities are built around our incomes. The guy making 30K a year, with nothing saved says, "dang...if I could just make 40 I'd have some savings left at the end of the year". Then a year or 2 later, he's making 40...but now he replaced the old beater he was driving, and took the girlfriend on a nice holiday. So now he says...'dang, if I could just make 50K, yeah 50 would do me...then I'd be able to put some aside". Then he a year or so later he's making 50K but now he's gotten married, moved into a better apartment and there's still nothing left"....and on and on it goes. Expenses rise to meet income, its the same for a lot of people. Now he's facing the prospect of possibly losing his job altogether, or if he manages to keep it...his wages will just about be cut in half. I do think there needs to be wage parity between Japanese auto makers operating in Namerica and UAW/CAW members...but I'm thinking its a lot to do it all in one fell swoop. Why not graduate it in, over a 2/3 year period, in 6 month or quarterly installments? It would make it easier for workers to adjust. The big 3 aren't going to become competitive overnight...it's gonna take at least 2 or 3 years before they can return to profitability in any case with the way the economy is right now. In another 2 years or so, the big 3 would have substantially lowered their wage costs and would be better able to compete with the Hondas and Toyotas...without pulling a 'shock and awe' attack on their employees' wages.

Maxx, its been a political reality in Canada for a long time, if you want to form a majority government, you need to do well with Quebec's electorate. The Liberals have had the Core Federalist vote for 'yahrs'...now with the Bloc taking the hard core separtists that leaves only the soft separtists left, Harper is merely pandering so he can get his covetted majority, but personally...I think he blew his one chance already.

The problem with leaving people to fend for themselves...they'll behave just like Wall Street, spending lavishly until all the money is gone...then just like Big Biz...they too will come running for help. Yeah, I know...not ALL, some will behave responsibly...but I'm talking about a critical mass here. Not all Wall Street companies and the like, they didn't all screw the pooch while it was open bar time and everyone was making great cake...but enough of them did.

Herr Canada...you might be suprised to find out, I'm not a die hard supporter of any one party. I've voted Conservative both federally and provincially...as well as Liberal and once upon a time I did vote NDP. How will I vote in the future? It depends on a number of factors, but mostly it'll be based on which party I think has the right agenda for the country or in the case of provincial politics...the province.

Juste pour vous laissez savoir, je voyage souvent a Quebec (damn can't make the accents on here)...I travel often to QC, and I'm pretty much fluent (spoken though, my writing bites). You are correct to a large degree...however there are many Quebecers who I would label "hard-core" in terms of their allegiance to the separtist cause. Just spitballing I'd say around 20% of Quebecers are hard core separtist, while 20% are hard core federalist...give or take. Its the other 50-60% who waffle between the 2. I'll have to check, but if I recall correctly Mme Jean still has a French (from France) passport, and I do recall something about her husband being involved with the separatist movement. As for Mulroney....he let the Trojan Horse into the House of Commons, prior to that Separatists were happy to organize at the provincial level.

LoL...baiting another member, in a political discussion group. Harumph, I'd never do anything that low, well not too often anyway ;-) Thanks for the welcome...dang ain't we just so Canadian.

They would never run as "one party"...they'd just merge like the Progressives and Alliance did. The point was already made, nobody can possibly know about the possibility of a coalition until after the ballots are counted and MPs elected. If the CHP were able to win some seats I'm sure you'd be pleased as punch to seem them join the Cons in forming a coalition to topple a Lib government.

Senor Canada....the people "hate" the coalition about as much as they hate the Tories, at least according to polling numbers. (see my prev post).

I just read a story on it: It predates Ignatieff, so I don't know how that would play into the numbers....how much of the anti-coalition support was anti Dion...I don't know. What is interesting is that support for a coalition government was equal (at the time this poll was taken) pretty much to what the Tories receieved in popular vote. So if Harper can lead a party with 38 or so percent support....Why not someone else?

So what your saying is that those who voted NDP...that they should have no influence on government policy??? Damn...I kinda like things like healthcare and CPP. What's wrong with parties representing a majority of Canadian voters getting together on a legislative agenda? Obviously nobody will get 100% what they want, I think its called comprimise or something like that. No matter who forms the government, no party in power ever delivers 100% on its campaign promises.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything Monsieur Canada...I just didn't understand why you were bringing up a former Liberal leader that's all, that was 2 elections ago. You can go all the way back to Macdonald or St Laurent if you want....we'll start a new thread.

Dancer...a serious question. Harper promised no deficits, now he says we're going to have one. He ran on Senate reform, now he's appointed a PQ separtist. Okay...so Harper made certain promises or commitments and didn't live up to them. No biggie, he's not the first and won't be the last to break an election pledge. But we don't immediately have an election every time our elected officials do something we don't like. Crimeahneeey sakes, we'd be voting 3 times a day. Why is it such a big deal that the Libs/Dippers form a coalition? Because they didn't run as one??? And why do you care what they do anyway? You didn't vote Lib/NDP did you?

No confusion here, there's just a lot of anger being spewed from all sides. Cons are upset at the prospect of being ousted...just like the 60% or so of Canadians who voted against the Cons were upset when Harper's party won re-election. Who has the "pluarity"? Yes, it is somewhat convenient for Libs/Dippers to combine their vote totals and to toss in the Bloc for support...that I will grant. And frankly I'm more disposed to another election based on the fact that democracy at its core means 'consent'....and it does strike me that a significant % of people in this country are not happy with the notion of a coaltion. Personally I'm sick of voting every year, (more when you add in the 4 other levels of gov't) and would prefer to see a coalition form and then in 1-2 years we can vote again...we never get what we vote for anyway. Harper has broken plenty of his election promises...like everyone before him. If a coalition does form Canadians would have the chance to render judgment in the next election...ho hum, democracy never ends...there's always another vote.

Paul Martin is on the heap with other former PMs like Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney and Chretien. The year is 2008 Mr. Canada...buy a new calendar.

Dion never was a separatist Dancer, but as a youth he was attracted to it...not unlike many youths who become attracted to things like anarchy or other ideologies. Unless you believe in things like McCarthyism, well then I think its pretty much a dead issue, Dion did after all author the "Clarity Act" for which separatists despise him. As for Mulroney wooing of separatists into the Conservative party...Meech Lake was the carrot. "C'mon guys...help me form a gov't and I'll get you what you want". When Mulroney couldn't deliver, that's when the Bloc was born. If the Conservatives had let sleeping dogs lie back then the Bloc never would have come into being. Now Harper is doing the same thing, appointing a PQ to the Senate. Liberals have the federalist vote in QC and Harper is trying to win the soft separtist vote...same as Mulroney did.

Those of us in Ontario are used to this kind of thing from Conservatives. Flaherty was a minister under Harris and Eves in this province, and they ran a campaign saying the books were balanced...when the Libs won the auditor gen reported something along the lines of a 5 billion dollar deficit. Fixed election dates? Hmmmmmm, only kinda sorta. No taxing of income trusts? Sure...if it'll get people to vote for us. Sick of kissing up to Quebec? Yeah, okay...but we need 'em for a majority, PQs aren't so bad...here have a Senate Seat. Senate Seats only by merit? Uhm, that doesn't include the Conservatives' biggest fundraiser. And I'm only scratching the surface, c'mon guys...add some more:

Dion was never a separatist...show me anything that lists him as a member of any separtist orginization. He does acknowledge flirting with the idea in his youth...so if that qualifies then there's tons of canadians out there who are marixts and nazis and anarchists based on the idea that they found a particular ideology interesting when young. He is after all the author of the 'Clarity Act' which spells out very specific rules should Quebec wish to separate...something for which many Quebecers dislike him. Mulroney was able to bring in guys like Lucien and Benoit (Benny) Bouchard...soft separtists, Mulroney brought them into the Conservative party by promising Constitutional renewal, when he failed...the Bloc was born. Hey guys...come join the Conservatives and I'll give you special status. When he couldn't deliver they screwed him royally and reduced the Cons to 2 seats. Now Harper is at it again with granting 'nation' status to Quebecois and appointing a PQ senator.