takeanumber

The Conservative talking head on "Politics with Don Newman" is already suggesting that she's an opportunist. I don't believe so. I think she's like Brison...couldn't moderate it...they wouldn't change...she looked uncomfy on that side of the house, so she left. Now the Cons, instead of facing the truth...they're not moderate enough, will resort to denial and calling her an opportunist. It's always easier to deny than to change.

Alberta and Quebec arn't going anywhere. So, some reporters were already suggesting that she's an "opportunist"...I guess we know how the Conservative Media is going to be attacking her.

The Cons will respond by insulting her and refuting her points that the Cons arn't moderate enough. I think she's right. The Cons are stuck at 31 percent...and they're not moving. I was pinning my hopes on her to change things in that party, and now that she's gone, well, there's no hope for the party in ever swinging towards the centre. Well, let's see how the Cons beat up on her, I for one will defend her.

"Last thursday I went to a dinner...ran into two long time friends...I gave david a call the next day...and we had a chat, and he said how are things going?...look, I'm a crossroads, we have a vote, and there are issues I'm concerned about...I could leave politics...but I'm in it for public service...several discussions over the weekend, david and I met for many hours...david spoke with the PM...PM made the offer, which I accepted...so I reflected on it, it was very, very difficult for me...and that's how I can best serve my constituents and my country" "it's not my intention to get personal, nor will I, but I do have a concern that lining up with the Bloc is not good for canada to trigger an election."

Stronach: I tried to advance the issues of cities, women, young people: the party leader is not truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country. Brutal.

She's going to HRDC....she's going to be responsible for implementing whatever Gomery says should be implemented. So you have Brison cleaning things up in Gagliano's old nest, and Belinda cleaning things up after Gomery. I think it's brilliant. Stronach has always been my favourite Conservative, along with Brison. And now that they've both defected, you know, I have fewer problems voting Liberal now. I have concerns...I want the mess cleaned up and checks put in place to ensure that it doesn't happen ever again. So we'll see if she can implement it. I was holding out for Stronach to moderate the Con party, and clearly they won't moderate...they've forced 2 great moderate people away...so man, this makes me just smile. What a surprise!

Belinda has defected. Revised prediction. Libs/NDP +1. No election.

It's being covered on politics with Don Newman. Wow! This is a bad omen for moderate conservatives in the party.

Thx August. I wasn't aware that Cadman was cleared to fly. If Cadman votes Lib...that still results in +1 for the Con/Bloc/Kilgour coalition? Aw well, I'm comfy with a +1 prediction.

Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick, and Manitoba are all overrepresented, as they benefit from the Senatorial and 1984 Clauses. Alberta, Ontario, and especially B.C., are all underrepresented. (BC is the most screwed.) Moreover, rural areas are overrepresented intra-provincially compared to urban areas. On balance, the GTA is under-represented. ---------- If you use the Calgary school logic that voting should be proportional to net contribution in dollar terms to confederation, the GTA is severely under-represented. ---------- It's URBAN English Canada's money that is being the most abused. Billions of dollars flood out to the rural parts (and EI is the greatest abuse) and very little flows back. There's so little money for infrastructure in the urban areas. ---------- Ontario only has a 1/3 of the seats and a little under 1/3 of the population. Quebec has a 1/4 of the seats and under 1/4 of the population. It's hardly a hegemony. The true hegemony is in Alberta, where urban areas make up 60% of the population, but get 49% of the seats.

Thursday: Big Budget Day. Time for predictions as to how the vote is going to go: Budget will be defeated. Margin: 1 vote. Kilgour voting against it, with Cadman being too sick to come. ----------------- Your predictions?

Hyperbole. That province only has 1/3 of the seats. How are they possibily repressing anybody? By being generous with their money? By voting for parties which share their social values? They have the right to vote for whoever they want...as does any other region. In so doing, they're hardly repressing anybody...they don't have the ability to do so.

Thx Kimmy. The BQ and large segments of Quebec society absolutely revelled in the pork. They loved it. Just check out Hansard and read how much the BQ loved the pork, and listen to the howls when the pork was being shut off. Not all Quebeckers, but many Quebeckers, got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they do the true Canadian thing: make it out as though THEY are the ones who are the victims. Not all Quebeckers are guilty, but I think certainly, many Quebeckers contributed to the problem by demanding so much that did not belong to them.

The figures I quoted include EI transfers. When I got the stats, they were unpublished, and I'm not sure if they've been published. Fact remains, Ontario, on balance, isn't repressed.

Cybercoma: Fact: Alberta transfers per capita: 4600 dollars Ontario transfers per capita: 400 dollars Ontario isn't that oppressed. That doesn't mean that the rest of Canada shouldn't be more self-sufficient.

Such a sad thread. It reminds me of Yugoslavia. Let's get a grip and remember that Alberta and Quebec have issues, and although I don't agree with them, they have a right to whine and moan. As for Ontario's power: over 1/3 of the country lives in Ontario. Quebec and Alberta are minorities. I find it especially hipocritical how Alberta has 3 million people, but demand the same amoutn of representation as a province that has 8 million -- but at the same time, tramples on minority rights. As for Quebec, they represent under 1/4 of the population, and are overrepresented in parliament, and are very represented in Ottawa. Ontario + Atlantic Canada + Sask. + Manitoba + BC = majority of Canada. And they don't whine too much. So, let's just remind ourselves that most of Canada is great.

Superior replies August. I'm not going to disparage an entire people. I think many Quebeckers are innocent of what went on. I think quite a few Quebeckers, both sovereinists and federalists, are quite guilty. I'm not a fan of Ford/GM Pork. Yes, the feds poured 300 mil in after the Ontario 500 mil. It's all corporate welfare, and it isn't right. Just because "it happens in Ontario too" doesn't make it any more right for it to be going on in Quebec, or anywhere, for that matter. We agree. Some of the spending is good. I mean...it's hard to be against post secondary students and children. I do. Imagine the outcry if the Queen didn't come and spoiled the Alberta/Sask. centennial? Moreover, at least let the BC election get finished with before launching into a new one. So yeah, I do buy it. We agree at least that he's a gentleman. In general, Quebec does get what it wants, and worse, they're always the victim. They're net beneficiaries of EI. The BQ response: QC is the victim. They're net beneficiaries of the transfers: The BQ response: QC is the victim. They're the net beneficiaries of MUCH of the sponsorship money (Mtl Grand Prix, for instance): The BQ response: QC is the victim. sigh. Thank god that most Quebeckers are decent people. But man, most sovereignists have some serious victim issues.

LMFAO!!!!!11111111

What are you implying? I said it was tempting, I never did. 3 billion, especially when it's over 5 years..as most liberal promises are, is pretty small. It's money well spent...except for some of the pure pork that helps nobody but business. Good, so you'll be fresh to catch the non-confidence vote on thursday.

In light of the Gomery inquiry, it's very tempting to make a number of blanket statements about the nature of Quebeckers. We're bigger than that, so we won't. ---- Ed Broadbent: stand up guy. Don't like his politics, but his heart is in the right place. ----- I like the NDP budget part, with the cancelling of planned tax cuts for corporations. I like the fact that a lot of money is being spent on priority areas, especially daycare. I'm not happy with the pork to Bombardier. I think most of the spending announcements is just recycled money from the budget...reannouncing money and rearranging money. The 20 billion in 22 days line is fictional. I'd hazard to guess that it's closer to 3 billion or so. ------- The Cons don't need my help to be portrayed in a negative light. There's a good reason for it. The Queen and the British Columbia Election. These events are outside of Quebec however, so I understand why many in Quebec don't see why they should wait. However, this is going to be one of the few times that Quebec doesn't get what it wants. As for the capitalizing on cancer remark...now leave it to a con to portray a liberal in a negative light. I'm convinced that it's people like you who are managing the news rooms in this country: The National Post, Calgary Herald, and that beacon of Canadian production values: Global Television. (Hmmmm, I can't get enough of Train 48 and Global National...with its 'public access' feel.) ----------

The Liberals have been pairing with the BQ for ages, and I believe that it's a good thing. As for the Cons, once again you have this double standard: when it comes to Cadman and two liberal cabinet ministers being away: their votes don't count. When suddenly the tables are turned, and one of their members is going to be away, well then -- it's totally different then, isn't? Give me a break. I listened to the deputy whip today talk about whether or not he was going to accept the NDP's offer of pairing, and he came out with an answer weasily enough to qualify as a Chretienism. "Should the offer be made we have said that we would certainly consider the notion of pairing but the vote should be on Monday..." blah blah blah. Terrible behaviour on both sides of the house. The only party really acting properly, both in terms of decorum and ethics, is the NDP. Frankly, that reality makes me sick. To think that I'd be brought to say that the NDP has more class and tact than the other parties...gawd, how far we've come.

Good replies: Granted, I'm not thrilled with Martin over his behaviour during the Chretien years. How does that make Harper's comments that Martin wants 2 MP's to die before Thursday, any more exusable? As for the reports...not sure if its true. Moreover, Harper didn't feel any sympathy for the Liberal who was at a funeral, or Chuck Cadman...so, if we accept the notion that Martin is satan, what about Harper's behaviour? Disguting behaviour is still disgusting behaviour, even when it's set against a Parliamentary backdrop. The supposed vote of non-confidence was on Monday, before the Vets bill had made it to the Senate. When the Cons voted to adjurn on Weds, they stalled the Vets bill in the Senate because the House, for some reason, had to be in session for it to get over there. So yes, in a way we were wrong, but to be more accurate, Harper and Dupe went back on their word with respect to the Vets. See what I mean about Conservatives wrapping themselves up in the flag with the Vets, and then turning around and disregarding them? So it was all cooked up? Proof? Italian Canadians live in other communities aside from Montreal North. The Italian Canadians I've spoken with are mortified by what went on, and yeah, they're mad about the Librano$ posters, and at the Liberal party. Disgusting behaviour is still disgusting behaviour in spite of 'what the other guys are doing'. One fallacy: Martin called the inquiry, and I genuinely believe that the MArtin camp wants to wipe the deck with Chretien. Let him. Then let the Martin reforms go all the way to make parties a public utility. You let the Cons in now, nothing will change. You saw how old Conservative crooks weaseled their way in before, they'll do it again. All the parties suck, we gotta reform the system. At least Martin is trying. What's Harper's plan?

There is no party for libertarians. Why many hop in bed with the Cons is beyond me. Hence many of the contradictions.

You said it Kimmy...communist idealogy was brought up, hence the (?) in my original statement. There was no blatant distortion...you reinforced the Anders line and added communism to the mix. Personal attack. Feel free to attack my arguements, but personal attacks serve no purpose here. --------------------------- Pateris: You are the first person to recognize the old PC/Alliance split in the party. Admitedly, there are Libertarians in the party. Admitedly, there are social conservatives in the party. However, there is a large number of party supporters, I'd say a majority, try to square both of them. For instance: A Libertarian believes that anybody can choose what to do with their bodies. A social conservative believes in the rights of the fetus. A social conservative might propose that the problem with too many abortions is that women are having sex outside of wedlock, implying that married couples can afford children, while single people can't. When the solution of providing proper income support to young, under-25 married couples is raised, to reduce abortion, the Libertarian might say fine, they might freak out. A social conservative argues that they don't want to pay for that child, and follows up with the statement: "Only people who can afford to have children should be able to have them." The social conservative logic, followed to its natural conclusion, is to mandate that nobody who is unmarried should be having sex, as promiscuity is allowing this evil of abortion into the world. The Libertarian logic, followed to its natural conclusion, is to maximize freedom and prevent government from forcing people into marriage or banning promiscuity. You can't have it both ways. Yet, I've heard Conservatives say that they'll just ban abortions for some people and slowly train promiscuity out of society. How can you possibly, in a party policy platform, reconcile social conservatism with libertarianism? Now, that's just one aspect of the problem...there are two real factions... But then you have the whole issue of religious and traditional hippocracy, which is endemic in the party. Moreover, there isn't a communitarian wing in the party...that contradiction is internal to most members. How on earth do you resolve those contradictions in policy?

1. The reply to my horror with respect to Harper saying that the Libs want 2 cons to die was: well Warren Kinsella says the Libs are evil. Well, we already knew the Chretien ppl had an evil streak. Alright -- and this justifies Harper's comments how? 2. The reply to the Vets bill: Can't it wait? A better question is: Why can't the Cons wait and keep their word? 3. Gagliano: Yeah, he sat at the cabinet table for 8 years. Horrendous. It doesn't change the allegation that a poor man had his health threatened by some thug. ------- For intents and purposes, the image of Italian-Canadians has been very much battered, first by the RAI scandal, and then by Gagliano. For the Cons to come out with that Librano$ poster, well, that was deliberately insensitive. I think they have the right to do it, I'm sure the Cons don't need the Italian-Canadian vote anyway.