Evening Star

Such as editorial boards' overwhelming consensus in favour of Stephen Harper and the CPC in the last election campaign (based on actual published editorial endorsements that are a matter of record)?

Many dictatorships are unstable.

Well, really, it really grew under PET's majorities iirc. Still, there was plenty of quick action and decision-making in that period, right?

This is not just his belief, right? He actually wins election after election in a blue-collar riding, as far as I can tell? Why should he step down? Because he used a couple of swear words??

Maybe... I'd probably say that Pearson's two minorities (especially the second) were some of the most activist and effective governments in our postwar history, especially compared to some of Chretien's majorities (past the first term, especially).

I'm a big fan of minority governments! However, like I said, I don't necessarily advocate PR for Canada. I just had an issue with the argument that proportional representation systems lead to poor budgeting and economic disaster.

But e.g. Sweden and Norway also use PR. Also Germany (way near the bottom of CPCFTW's graph.) I'm not even really an advocate of PR but this line of reasoning does seem problematic to me.

Unlike many people here, I actually am a regular listener to CBC Radio and do rely on the CBC website as a primary news source. I enjoy some of its TV programmes as well. I completely support having a public broadcaster (and full disclosure, I've benefited from it). However, I don't know that I can 100% say I'm satisfied with the service. I'm not sure it has ever been as good as BBC, for example, particularly CBC-TV. (Radio is better but the new Radio 2 often disappoints and frustrates me too. Still an improvement over most of what's on the radio in Regina though.) So I do wonder what it is that keeps the Ceeb from reaching what I see as its potential.

"Left" and "right" are both broad and relative terms but, yes, I can say this. From my point of view, the CBC seems to bend over backwards to give a balanced view. I don't think it has an ideological editorial voice like either the Toronto Star or the National Post. When we've discussed this before on this board, I gave the example of Power and Politics, where virtually every issue is discussed by a panel featuring one representative of each major party, or at least someone who could be associated with the perspective of that party. Someone's response was something to the effect of "for every Conservative, they have two Liberal/NDP shills on there." Uh, yeah, that's how a multi-party system works. Actually, if there's any bias on the show, I thought it was against the NDP. They were almost treated as a joke a couple of times after the election. (As for balancing George Strombolopoulos, whose show is basically an entertainment talk show, what about Kevin O'Leary's shows?)

To be clear, do you agree with him, Argus, that we should in fact continue to recruit plenty of immigrants from South Asia but we should focus on recruiting Hindus (especially Gujaratis and South Indians) instead of Sikhs and Muslims? You realize that this seems to be the crux of his argument?

Ha, even I gave a little to the Liberals at the beginning of the campaign.

Wow. Maybe I'm way off then. (You basically seem to be right about everything else on this thread btw.)

I guess a fundamental issue is that I just don't think the Liberals and NDP are 'of very similar stripe.'

Rae has always said that he left the NDP over policy disagreements, i.e. over principle, and I believe him: http://sites.google.com/site/thegospelaccordingtosaintlefty/why-did-bob-rae-leave-the-ndp Yup, and this is why I don't expect them to rebound by much.

Dre and Michael, what are some other models you would recommend that we look to if we want to reform our system? Are there other systems that you think are working better? I often hear good things about the French, Japanese, and Swedish systems.

That's the definition of orders more generally. This is the specific description for the Order of Canada: (at http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=72 ) I don't know much about Eugene Levy, beyond SCTV and American Pie, both of which I enjoyed reasonably well. What were the reasons for his inclusion?

That joke is hilarious!

My understanding is that the Millennial cohort is actually larger than the baby boomer cohort...?

Anyway, my feeling right now is that i) staging a walkout is ridiculous and ii) bilingualism should probably not be a requirement for this job but iii) since it is a requirement, it's certainly fair to question why the requirement was waived in this case. I'm big on procedure and requirements for important positions should not be just waived lightly. It's entirely possible that there's a good reason as Smallc suggests but it's fair to want to know what it was.

I'm sure the Liberals would be terrified of losing all their seats in the West...

I think he just meant that the NDP got a little over 30% of the popular vote.

I kind of feel that way about both her and Topp and am unsure that either would resonate in Quebec. That said, Topp worked for Romanow's government, which wasn't exactly on the far left. Also, I've seen Nash dodge fair questions to a maddening degree on Power and Politics.

Ah, I see, fair point. Still, while the Tories did pick up much of the 905 belt in the last election, I hadn't really thought it was a 'heartland' for them? Don't know the Lower Mainland.

I didn't really have that sense at all, actually, beyond just that this is a relatively uneventful time, especially compared to an election. I definitely haven't felt that people are paying more attention and interest to the LPC, if that was what you meant? I'm still hoping for Mulcair or, failing that, Dewar. I somehow have a feeling that neither Topp nor Nash would be able to sustain the party's current strength.

Ha, classic Liberal move.