idealisttotheend

Ah third option politics. I think that we have failed to diversify our trade for the simple reason that it's been left to the market which is notoriously short term. There are a lot of people out west who are wishing they'd sold their cattle or lumber to more markets. But it's easier just to put it on a truck and ship it south 200 kilometers than put it on a ship and send it 1000 kilometers. I wonder if the solution isn't to sign free trade deals with the EU and key Asian markets and then set up some sort of shipping co-operative, (this would be great for Martin ) The shipping co-operative would ship both ways at cost and perhaps make trade more economically viable to farther flung places for all sorts of industries. I know it's not strictly free market but it might be better for all of us in the long term.

On the National tonight, CBC reported that the NDP had already put a condition on their participation in a minority government and that condition was a referendum on Proportional Representation. This is obviolusly in the NDPs interests but then no government that wins via the first past the post system is likely to push too hard for it. The way I see the NDP campaign, they are trying to be all things to all people. While this may be a noble goal, until and unless they are seen as electable they have no natural constituency. I mean anyone on the left will vote liberal just to stop Harper from coming into power if it looks like it is going that way unless there is a very good chance the NDP candatate will win in their riding. Or split off to the Greens etc. But if they were to push really hard on the PR thing I wonder if that wouldn't attract more votes. It would appeal to their target vote, it would also give people a reason to vote NDP even if their only expectation would be that the result would be a minority government. Vanilla platforms on more health care funding will get lost as the heat turns up between the Libs and the Cons. Keep that as the backbon but use the 'media space' to talk about PR and the importance of getting it done in this parliament, selling it in terms of helping to end government arrogance. It may be the only way for the NDP to stay relevant as the big two fight it out. Can the at least one party capture the imagination of the electorate the election? I think PR is a great idea by the way, it would make everyone's vote "matter." Put together with the financing law it might be two strikes for a stronger democracy. Here is a great site on PR and everything you might want to know about it And this link lists the various systems available (mixed member looks practical) Cheers

Recently, the cons have been all about appealing to Ontario, at the expense of the Western grassroots political traditions and their more "radical" positions. No one seems to have noticed though, idealogues all or what. ?

I grew up in Saskatchewan, lived in Alberta for seven years and am now back in Saskatchewan. TO me the west means, 1) Everybody works hard when times are tough 2) You give your neighbour a hand and she'll do the same for you 3) We are a bit more rambunctious politically and more progressive/willing to change (elected senate etc., new parties) 4) We believe in our country (or at least we used to). 5) We ain't afraid of no damn snow. None of the above involves whining about how Ontario has more seats or the bourgeois seperatist bullshit coming out of Alberta. But then that's always been my opinion and is not shared by people who think they can gain politcal favour by trying to whine loud enough.

Thank you to August for rescuing the thread. You are making a fundamental error though, you said that the US spends more on health with lower tax rates. You failed to consider however that the majority of US health costs are not paid through taxes. This is why when companies choose between Michagan and Ontario, they find Ontario more competitive because even with the higher tax rates it's cheaper to do buisness in Ontario when health insurance premiums are factored in. This of course does not apply to companies that don't pay their employees health insurance premiums, these companies prefer "Right to work" (i.e. "no right to a union") states that Hjarmar is so fond of.

The government should determine what is right by asking the majority when said majority has the most money, food water etc. (at the top of the economic cycle), and then enshrining that in a constitution. The government should determine what is right by asking people who live in communities where people of all diversities (ethnic, economic, age etc.) live together. The government should determine what is right by ensuring that a majority of the weakest members of society agree with any set standard. The government should determine what is right by giving people the responsibility to choose for themselves in all cases where their choice will not hurt someone else substantially.

I think August is right on this one. We have simply upped our expectations so we don't notice how much better things are. We expect MRIs and broadband connections so we see ourselves as always needing more and we see ourselves as deprived if we don't have them. Nonetheless we have not dealt with how our society is and ought to be changing to adapt to this new reality. We insist on appling old structures to new realities.

I would like it fine, please do (what is your point). Well, choose a side against whom exactly? Against Bin Laden? He is a mass murderer and I think we already are against people like his ilk. Perhaps the fallacy is to allow ourselves to be drawn into believing it is a question of sides. That will be both our and America's downfall. That was not my intention at all. I question only the supposistion that 'English Canada' is some sort of culturally homogenous entity. I don't think 'English Canada' exists actually, but I surely think that Canada outside Quebec exists. My question is whether an ethnic chinese Canadian in the lower mainland of BC has more in common with a fisherman in Newfoundland (who speaks english) than a french Canadian in Trois Riveriers. Carleton article regarding culture Only 20% of poll respondants feel Canada has a seperate culture For a Canadian version of manifest destiny click here From a competing "community" Most of our culture (defined as a product) comes from the U. S. Period. If you don't believe me turn on your TV or pick up a magazine at the newsstand. None of the above arguments are new in fact they're so old they're cliche. Point taken, sort of. I guess I defend our own unique mix of these things and hope that we can be the best at all of them and that we keep trying until we are. But you are right in a way.

There is a reason we have a constitution in this country and it's to ensure that minorities are protected. It may be that a majority vote is not the best way to determine the rights of french minorities (or english minorities in Quebec) ought to recieve services in their native tounge. This is a bilingual country and to argue against providing services in both languages is to disrespect the french minority even if there are other minorities who could also use language status. A counrty with minorities is hard, but do-able so long as we all respect them.

Fun while you are in Alberta. Suggest to someone that competiition is not the answer to the housing problem and that the government should step in and regulate some prices on the lower end and even possibly build some cheap units. Listen politely for the indignant righteous defense of the free market, competition in general and keeping big bad monopolistic government out of buisness. Then quietly point out the Boardwalk Properites Ltd. owns almost 50% of the rental market in both Calgary and Edmonton where they invariably buy a building, make some cosmetic repairs and then jack up rents by about 25% knowing full well that most people have nowhere else to go and depending on their domination of the market. Watch the facial contortions of your conversation mate and the spluttering that will ensue. It's fun but not if you rent in Edmonton or Calgary.

Re: A new deal for cities. Am I the only one that sees the new deal for cities as an exercise in utter uselessness. Firstly it was funny to see the Liberals backtrack by including towns, I was wondering why people in rural areas (traditionally poorer) should support people in urban areas (traditionally richer). Secondly, if cities need more revenues they ought to raise them themselves through property taxes or what have you. If the cities need a new taxation mechanism then give it to them (say get out of gas tax all together and let cities set their own, though this may be counterproductive on the environmental side). The level of government that spends the money ought to raise the money. The only benefit to the feds transferring money is equalization, which is better done at the provincial level in any case. Say it after me children "There is only ONE taxpayer." I would submit that this country's main political problem is that debate regarding social programs, health and taxation rates tends to boil down to intergovernmental hot potato. I think t Mr. Ian McClelland (spelling aprox. -- former Reform MP now MLA in Alberta in charge of the "let's fight off the separatists in Alberta by talking about our own pension plan" project) said it best, "It's about getting the other guy to take the blame for levying the taxes and then taking the credit for spending the money." Therefore a new deal for cities is clearly an exercise in political rhetoric and Martin is doing it simply because some mayors came to him and it sounded like a good way to be the good guy, unless he can prove otherwise. However another problem we have in this country is a lack of national political objectives. Plus, taxation competition among the provinces can lead to a race to the bottom in terms of providing services to those who are at the bottom . Three birds with one stone? Here it comes. There are at least two big areas the federal government has historically had responsibility for that also relate to cities, (housing and the environment). Get rid of this unproductive "new deal for cities" as it will only give cities the opportunity to blame the federal government when they run short on revenues and isn't useful. Replace it with -- gasp -- nationally directed funding for mass transit and affordable housing. 1) Mass transit. Here the federal government could get together with the cities and all other interested parties and come up with national objectives and goals for improving mass transit usage. Since Toronto might need a new subway line and Nanton may need a new Handibus, the individual municipalities would do most of the planning and would be compensated both on a per capita basis and by how well they met the national objectives. This would help environmentally (remember big bad Kyoto) and if ambitious enough could take the pressure off cities infrastructure budgets because fewer roads would be needed. Plus people might actually get where they want to go more efficiently which is always a bonus. 2) Housing for the homeless. I'm livid with Mr. Layton for bursting my bubble that the NDP was the last truly federalist party in Ottawa but will defend him nonetheless. His comments about cuts to social housing funding causing people to die are partly true. I mean if it weren't true that this sort of funding saved lives why spend it at all. Whether it makes Mr. Martin a murderer remains to be seen but we do need to acknowledge that survival is an issue for some of us and a warm place to sleep can be the difference. So.... the federal government should be required to provide shelter and a meal for EVERY person who is homeless on a long term basis. Nothing fancy but a warm place to sleep and enough nutrition to survive. These shelters should be run by the federal government pure and simple to get rid of any wrangling and because it's more efficient than funding 5 or 10 agencies in any given city. Again, this would be the federal government's sole responsibility and they would be REQUIRED to ensure people don't freeze or starve to death on our streets. Doesn't that make more sense than another half baked tax transfer from one government to another?

Exactly. (There now how's that for a short post.) (Love all your posts takeanumber, very witty)

Okay. But to define who we are, we invariably have to define who we are not (see Gwen, Nationalism without walls ). There is a lot of pressure on us to become more like (or flat out to become) the Americans. Ever heard Harper defend the war? He rarely does it in terms of it's objectives but in terms of our 'need' to 'cooperate' with the Americans. It has been stated in this forum that the Canada/US relationship is our most important relationship as such it is an election issue. This is a vast and unjustified oversimplification of my arguments. 'English Canada,' should it exist, is different from Quebec though in that we have little of our own culture. Most of it comes from the States and so "anti-Americanism" is, among many other things, a self defence mechanism. Culture is vastly underrated but it is the essential component of any society. It defines thoughts and beliefs and I think accounts for the majority of non-economic "anti-Americanism" in English Canada. "We" don't have a separate language and so no natural defence barrier. I would also say that my arguments are not "anti-American" as such. I criticize many elements of American foreign policy, some domestic/economic policy and think our system of governance is generally better. That doesn't mean I have anything against Americans as individuals or that I disagree with everything America is and does. Criticism is the essential element of democracy and one of my main complaints about America recently is that there are powerful elements in America trying to use undemocratic methods to squelch criticism. Perhaps, but not necessarily. People need something to believe. With the demise of organized religion as the main belief system in the Western world, people are searching for something else. More often than not they find it in the free market and in the badges of status it offers. But why not Canada? Why can't people believe in a country that represents diversity, tolerance, democracy, working together, respect for all members of society etc. My nationalism is not blind, if Canada invades Zimbabwe tomorrow I will not support that decision. But if we cannot be nationalistic are we not in danger of losing the Canada we know all together? Who will defend it?

I think this is true, the question is who (and in what proportion) will get the benefits of the more productive technologies now and in the future. That would give them the most free market value now wouldn't it?

I thought Martin was a francophone (yes he has Ontario roots but more in Quebec), wasn't this one of Chretien's beefs with him, that he broke the tradition?

There was an article in the Post today about how Manely is being pegged as Martin's successor, by disaffected Chretienites. Now the Post may simply be trying to stir up trouble within the Liberals but Martin's complete inability to unite the party after the feud may hurt him substantially. I think the continuing feud is a function of PM PMs advisors having cut their teeth attacking the Chretienites and their pettiness, not necessarily Martin himself. Nevertheless the Liberals could do a lot worse than Manely who may have been seen as a better choice if the leadership had been decided in a more democratic fashion. Given this, August's comments and the situation in Ontario with the unpopular tax hikes (and traditional 'send the opposite party to Ottawa as we have in Toronto') I am starting to wonder if this might not be an interesting election after all with a conservative minority and the NDP making substantial gains (and therefore holding the balance of power on non-Quebec issues. . If it happens it may be the best way to deal with the 'democratic deficit' anyway, ironic from Mr. Martin's perspective but true.

I have to say that this would be a good reason for me not to vote NDP, a very good reason. I am not totally adverse to seperation if it is voted for by a overwhelming majority but I believe that if the country can't be broken up under the terms of the clarity act it ought not be broken up. I mean a clear question and more than 50% + 1 is not unreasonable by any extent. In fact to break up a country on less is to not respect it in the first place frankly I don't see how this at all relates to the NDPs objectives. It seems like fairly cheap vote mongering with no other particular purpose than to appeal to seperatists in Quebec. Plus if we have learned one thing about the Quebec issue it's don't open old wounds which this would seem to do again for no real good reason. I am very disappointed with the leader of the (national) NDP, Mr. Jack Layton. If he wants to find common ground with Quebec there must surely be better ways than making it's seperation from Canada easier. P. S. I find I have more and more respect for Mr. Chretien the further he receeds into the distance... I never though I'd say that though I did respect him somewhat before.

Shades of social credit? Mr. Hellyer doesn't propose how to control how much or little money is printed though so I think that would be a key question, can't have the right print no money and the left print too much. It is interesting though, I mean we are about to run into the problem of not being able to 'sell' any more debt and then there will be major problems given the technification of the workforce. Interesting also that 1974 was about the same time the federal government started to rack up the famous national debt (due to OPEC of course). But I wonder if there is any relation between the two? Mr. Hellyer has always made a lot of sense to me, when I have paid attention (I fear August will have some examples but just from what I've heard/read he's not that flakey). He's always been a "damn the torpedoes" (excuse the pun) nationalist, if not all that realistic vis a vie the party system. The left wing party we have can't be seen as electable (and is losing some votes to the Greens). I don't see the use of the CAP unless it replaces the NDP, or the Liberals go the way of the Kim Cambell Tories which I don't see happening.

The free market allocates more resources to people who already have resources, it's all 'supply side'. Unless, of course it is properly regulated so that people can be rewarded proportionately to the work they do but all people have a reasonable chance, (like poets or laundry workers even if they're not as 'valued' as currency traders). It is the most flexable but certainly not the most equitable. Is Britany Spears really 1000 times better than the PM of Canada for example.

No -- the 15,000 person has to spend a far greater amount of the income on necessities of life. It's called a progressive system, very popular in the developed world. Hmmm. Their hardest working, best educated and most productive citizens depend on education and health systems that are often integral parts of the welfare state. They prefer having them I'm told. Like Autoworker's or other "overpaid" (your assertion) union members. Or people in urban areas (like downtown Toronto), or maybe immigrants? All very poor. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove this is the intention of the NDP Thanks kindly.

Ah, the Reform/Alliance/Conservaties are alive and well. Another case of the foot in the mouth disease they must catch at fundraisers or something. Harper must be livid, he's been working hard to prevent this kind of thing even though it is the basis of a grassroots system.

Courting the soft sepratist vote, it is the only possible reason. Also shows how the federal Liberals see the country, somewhere Trudeau is screaming in agony. And rightly so I submit. I agree totally. Ever since the mid 70s the BCNI (and it's dirivates including Power Corp) have seen fit to make sure both Liberal and Tory leaders have at least one foot in their sphere. Mr. Desmarais is plenty smart enough to see the potential of a son of a prominent cabinent minister driving a truck for his company. What I can't reconcile though is why the buisness community pushed so hard for the Right merger with Martin firmly in control of the Liberals. To keep Martin honest or because they think Martin might act in a manner not in their interests, to push him to the right? I can't figure it out.

Harper says Matin ad breaks down co-operation with US vis a vie security I find this story interesting. It seems to me that is becoming somehow wrong to criticize the US for any reason. I have not seen this ad but according to the story all Martin says is that ""We want to be different. We don't want to be American, we want to be Canadians ...." This is hardly rampant anti-Americanism or unprincipled criticism. In fact it is not criticism at all. Of course the Liberals are attacking Harper on being pro war which is implied critics but I see no reason why it is in any way unacceptable. In fact (to reveal my own bias on the matter) I think it is necessary for us to have our own foreign policy and to, respectfully, criticize the US as necessary. 1) Mr. Harper is the same man that launched a lawsuit against the government for the bill to restrict third party advertising as he felt it was a restriction on free speech. Now he says ads should be "immediately withdrawn" because they suggest Canada should be and remain different from America? Free speech only when it suits Mr. Harper? 2) If we restrict our constructive criticisms of the US based on the threat of terrorism, do we not give the terrorists power? 3) Is it not necessary for Canada to remain different from the US? The US was a good idea, it still is in some respects . But can we not take the best of the US and the best of several other countries and forge our own destiny? Is the American system best, the Ideal? 4) Are we economically capable of criticizing the US given the threat of protectionism on their part (and is this what Mr. Harper is really worried about)?

For: Legitimized 'socialism' as a political force Medicare from Saskatchewan Minority goverment of 72 -- set the agenda Influetial in 1980-84 parliament Liberals take policies from platfrom to stay in good with people on the left of the spectrum Tend not to vacilate between centerist positions as Liberals and PCs. Against: May have allowed Mulroney to pass FTA in 88 by splitting vote Never get many seats Not seen as being able to win People like Tredeau, though ideologically inclined to the NDP join the Liberals instead (Tredeau didn't want to "spend life as a preacher.")

IMHO, the Liberal ads and the website are some of the most effective election advertising I've seen in a long time. Everyone knew Harper was a liability, maybe if they hadn't had the $100,000 limit in their leadership convention someone else would've been elected leader and the election result would be far more in doubt. Remember the escalator incident and the stories of Finance officials quitting over his temper? I think we have always seen more of PM PMs advisors than PM PM himself. Yet, he is still one of the most intellectually honest and smartest people to hold the position in a very long time. I wonder though if the buisness community pushed the merger of the right so hard because they were afraid of him even though he is often painted as one of them.