Bryan

Forcing the opposition to put up or shut up doesn't mean he wants an election, it means he knows the Liberals could not survive one. They'll say they're going to be tough, but he knows they have no choice but to fold. That means it's time to make some serious legislative hay to get real Conservative policies in place before the Liberals get their act together.

No, this should definitely not be allowed. All parties should live and die by their own fund raising. If not enough people support them to make their party viable, the taxpayers should not be forced to make up the difference.

Calling one himself, no I don't see that. Forcing the Liberals to have no choice but to vote him down, I'd bet on it. I'd also bet on the CPC figuring out a wedge issue they know has public support, but that the Liberals will hate, and the public will be angry at the Liberals for opposing it.

He's not the only one.

I certainly did underestimate him. He did much better than I thought he could. I was certain he'd lose about 8-10 more seats to the CPC, and 12-15 to the NDP.

Certain votes most certainly can be wrong. If a party is planning things that will harm the country, voting for them would be wrong.

If Ignatief wins the leadership, we'll see even more puffins. Unrepentantly this time.

No, he opposed it because it was bad legislation. All people regardless of their affiliations already have the right not to be slandered, threatened, assaulted, or killed. The only thing this legislation did was restrict freedom of speech. It was a slippery slope that would have turned the CHRC into a full blown gestapo. No leader worth anything would have allowed it to pass, regardless of their opinion of the whole hate crime issue.

Not necessarily. That is a subject that was a central pillar of The Reform Party. It's one of the things they had to put on the back burner to get the PCs to sign on to the new party. Since electoral reform is such a hot button issue right now, and senate reform is something that Harper himself has brought back to the forefront, I think having this as a separate ministry is appropriate at least temporarily. Steve Fletcher is a Reform/Alliance guy, and an incredibly ambitious hard worker, so he won't be just paying lip service to the title. If there is a chance for even incremental improvements in our system, Fletcher is the guy to do it. Besides that, I think expanding cabinet in general is appropriate on a temporary basis at this time. Give the ministers whose portfolios are most directly involved in economic considerations for the country a more streamlined task list to concentrate on, and let other keeners work on the tasks that are more social than fiscal. If anything, they probably could have done a little bit more of this, as long as it was short term. The one change I'm most happy with is Prentice out as Industry Minister. I don't doubt his integrity or sincerity, but he was simply out of touch with the issues involved with the copyright legislation he was trying to bring forward. I think Clement will be more sympathetic to the personal property issues involved in this legislation, and that Prentice's tough approach will be more appropriate in environment (a portfolio that has had two weenies in a row). More women is a good thing. Harper has more qualified women than he has places to put them right now. It also has the nice effect of cutting off any attempt by the Liberals to try to claim to be the party of women in the next election. One big mistake, IMO, is keeping Strahl at Indian Affairs (why has that portfolio not been renamed to something more appropriate yet?). There are several strong aboriginal Conservative MPs, should have made a change here.

McKenna not wanting the job I would think has more to do with the state of the party than he's letting on. To win the leadership of the Liberals right now is essentially winning a poison chalice. I think anyone who is really worthy of the job would also be smart enough to know not to go anywhere near it.

Conservatives did pay nearly $40 billion on the debt. Difference is, they factored it into the budget, instead of pretending it was a surprise later.

People who claim to be in the know have been predicting the doom and gloom for the Canadian economy every quarter for almost 3 years now. They've been wrong every time, so why would we listen to them now? The US economy has been in the toilet for quite some time, while ours was white hot. And that was when we lost almost 30% of our economic advantage with our high dollar. Now that the dollar is lower again, we're in an even better position than we were a year ago.

Martin is an idiot. The only thing He understands about fiscal management is to keep repeating the word surplus. After that, it's all smoke and mirrors. Martin stops paying the basic bills, and tries to claim that as a surplus. Try that with your mortgage sometime and see if the bank thinks you're a good fiscal manager.

Ever notice the recounted numbers never match the initial counts? That alone is pretty frightening. When you consider that some of the margins are that close, some of the allegations of tampering would affect more than the margin of victory, and that the recount number seems never to match the initial count, it is inconceivable to me that they would not do a full recount in those disputed ridings. In the Dosanjh case, there were a maximum of 500 votes eligible to be cast for one particular poll, yet they counted over 900 votes, 800 of them for the winner. Doesn't matter if that is fraud or if it's just incompetent Elections Canada officials, a full recount is obviously required. Also, it appears that CP (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...anIFiUJYq6ElIOQ), and LINK (http://www.thelinkpaper.ca/index.php?subac...rom=&ucat=1) have different ideas about what the Vancouver South recount means now. CP says the judges decision to only count a sampling is his prerogative and his findings are final. LINK says that the narrow margin of 33 votes reflected in the partial recount meant that the full recount is now automatic. edit: I just checked Elections Canada's site. (http://enr.elections.ca/JudicialRecount_e.aspx). Vancouver South is having a full judicial recount, and it is automatic due to the adjusted margin being less than 0.1%.

I'm working on a book right now about people who live in the rain forest in Panama. People in Canada have no idea what poverty is.

Why stop with Stock Day? The Liberals vilified Preston Manning. They didn't even attempt to run against him or the Reform Party, they just invented a terrifying strawman and ran against that. Liberals have been playing below the belt politics for decades. But as soon as someone even slightly pushes back, they're the ones to cry foul? They is simply have no credibility in that department.

Sure, If you call removing 75% of a party's ability to raise funding from one source, 90% from another, and 100% from two more a "mere modification".

I don't think we need to be laughing at their misery, but the point is still valid. Both the NDP and the Liberals have deceitfully tried to paint the CPC as being in bed with big business, but it was the NDP and Liberals who were cut off at the knees by no longer allowing such support. Historically, the Liberals relied heavily on corporate donations, the NDP on union donations. The Conservatives' strength is their individual support. Limiting who can donate and making the maximum donation so low, means you are dependent on how many supporters you have, not how rich a few of them might be. The Conservatives have proven that they are the ones who really are the party of the common citizen far more so than the other left wing parties who make such claims.

Most polls indicated that PM Harper was the most liked/most trusted of the party leaders. example: http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...er-13-2008E.pdf

So what's he going to say at the press conference Monday? "Can we start again?" :lol: :lol:

One department of one store, yes. But it's the foot in the door that cannot be allowed, no matter what. Walmart did the right thing for their customers. Other people who also are low paid and need the most inexpensive products possible.

This good both for Walmart, and for consumers. Walmart wants to keep prices as low as possible, and has a zero tolerance policy regarding things that dramatically increase cost. Employees had a choice. They knew full well that the consequences of chasing that 30% wage increase was a 100% pay decrease. They gambled anyway and lost. Consumers have a choice. If lowest prices are your concern, shop at Walmart and their like. If highest employee wages are your concern, find high-end boutique stores that sell on commission. I wish executives of Walmart Canada were running the country.

1) Interviews: I've seen and heard plenty of Conservatives give interviews. If you watch Politics with Don Newman, he has a lot of different people on all the time. Mike Duffy too. I don't see a difference at all in this respect in any of the parties. They all have certain people who are good in front of a camera, and others who they'd rather not speak for the party, and they all put the leader first especially during a campaign. 2) Taking advice: Harper was recruited to come back to politics specifically to become the leader of the new conservative movement. He did not charge in insisting how things should be done, they wooed him, brought him back, and organized the top down structure for him. Flanagan, Flett, etc, showed him how they wanted him to do things, and he did as he was told. He compromised a LOT just to get the right to join back together under one banner. There are still a lot of precarious differences that he has to balance, as the Reform and PC camps still tend to view each other with suspicion. Harper is all too aware of the importance heeding the concerns of both camps. This is a stark contrast to what other Liberals are saying about Dion now that the dust is settling. 3) Open to differences: Harper himself has taken one position initially, then revised it according to his constituents' and/or party's desires (Iraq, abortion, gun control, etc). He knows full well that members need to reflect their constituents' wishes. All parties have had people that they've had to bounce. Each tries to be open to differences while balancing the fact that they are a party that is supposed to be voicing a set position on things, rather than a loose network of independents.

I'm quite certain the major parties feel exactly the same way as you about this. Problem is, neither would ever want to be the one to say it or do anything about it. They are both fully aware that whichever party takes the tough love approach, the other will go sucking up to Quebec to make serious political hay for the following election. The only way it could work is if significantly more seats were added outside Quebec at the same time, making their 75 seats less of a threat.

With the Bloc? NDP doesn't have enough seats to make a difference.