Evening Star

See, I actually think Miller was quite good (if not quite as great as I hoped for) and will be remembered that way: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/880076--face-it-torontonians-miller-time-was-good

Whether or not this is true, the point was just that PET did believe in a charter and that he was the one who proposed it, got the support for it, and implemented it, without being somehow pressured to by the NDP. (One could also say the Americans had a bill of rights almost 200 years before Tommy Douglas proposed one in Canada.) The most influence the NDP had over his governments was during the 72-74 minority govt, whose main accomplishments, Petro-Canada and the FIRA, have since been abandoned, for better or worse. In any case, I see little point to petty bickering between Liberal and NDP partisans. Both parties have done good and bad and have probably been most effective when they have co-operated.

Yeah, that makes no sense to me at all, esp considering that the US is our largest trading partner and we're among their chief allies.

(http://books.google.ca/books?id=yD_EGgNzYCkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=just+watch+me&hl=en&ei=KanETIbJJcOjnAe6wISGCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false pp 446-447)

I've got to agree with Nicky here. Repatriation of the constitution and the charter were part of PET's vision since the beginning. In fact, despite his majority in 1980, he had actually offered a full coalition to the NDP, with several cabinet seats for the NDP, just so the govt could have more representation from the West. Broadbent and Rae turned him down (amusing, considering where Rae ended up). They actually chose not to play a part in the government in the 80s and certainly can't be credited with anything that happened during the 80-84 term. Who knows what might have happened in terms of the relationship between the Centre and the West if we actually saw that coalition.

Not necessarily. The CPC would probably just need to compromise more than they have been, you know, like a minority government should. Or else we might have an election and the Liberals might have to come up with an actually creative and appealing platform that might actually win. Layton gave his reasons for backing the CPC in the light of EI reform and they seem reasonable enough. As far as I recall, the Liberals didn't have a better proposal to offer. (Did they?) If they did, it would have made sense for Layton to withdraw support and force an election. xpost

Because I post here (which is also how I know not everyone here is white)?

I haven't spent much time out West. Do you think the rest of the West feels this way or is it mainly Alberta?

Yeah, and besides, punked didn't say that the NDP never compromises or seeks power. He or she said that he or she doesn't personally cast a vote on the basis of whether a party is going to win or not. The NDP has won many provincial elections and is in power in two provinces. Federally, they have had a significant influence in a few Liberal minority governments. (I think it's safe to say that LBP's and PET's minority govts might have been quite different if they didn't need to compromise with the NDP.) There is every reason to believe that could happen again, given the current political trends.

How do you know the skin colour or ethnicity of the forum participants, mikedavid00?

Actually, I grew up in Ottawa and I've noticed that the homelessness situation has seemed to be getting worse over the past ten years. (I always blamed the feds and province.) I can believe that you're right about public housing. Perhaps you're right about wait times and energy costs. I haven't looked into either situation really closely. (Energy is included in my rent.) I really like my community health centre though.

Layton's explanation of his support for the govt's EI reform always seemed like one of his most sensible statements, actually: http://www.midweekcanada.com/news_detail.php?nid=5054&cid=2 That said, I have to grudgingly agree that Ignatieff reversing his stand in the light of this year's budget isn't exactly a flip-flop either.

Disagree. The number of community health centres has increased greatly (doubled iirc) and there have been reductions in waste times. And the Green Energy Act is a hugely ambitious project. It is understandable to me that there may be higher costs in the short term. From what I read, taxes only increased below the rate of inflation during Watson's term as mayor, while the deficit was reduced?

But do you think that it's working better, in the sense that it has created a safer, more peaceful society or even a more effective and efficient justice system?

I don't claim that our system is perfect but is anyone seriously claiming that the American system is working better??

Suppose the UN had clearly declared the Iraq War illegal, by a vote of the General Assembly or whatever means you prefer. Would you be OK will a sanctuary bill in that case?

That is a fair point. I guess I think a war should be officially sanctioned by the UN in the first place in order to be considered legal, which never happened in this case. I'm still not entirely opposed to giving sanctuary to soldiers who resist a non-UN-sanctioned war - as well as giving legal protection to Canadian soldiers who do the same thing.

Oh come on, they'd also demand an environmental impact assessment.

I mean, I mostly vote NDP federally because I feel like they're the only party that still advocates Pearson/Trudeau-style liberalism. Ignatieff strikes me very much as a descendant of Mulroney.

Wasn't LBP the second-most left-wing Liberal leader ever? (First, if you think the War Measures Act automatically made PET a law-and-order conservative.)

The war was deemed illegal by Kofi Annan, as my links show.

OK, so it does appear that my hypothesis has some holes in it. But, What part was BS? That the Opposition didn't choose how the stimulus $ was allocated (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/27/ottawas-stimulus-fiasco/) or that they didn't force tax cuts on the govt? And it seems evident to me that public transportation infrastructure does have more long-lasting economic benefits than e.g. recreational complexes in comfortable neighbourhoods, not only for the reasons that were already given but also because it becomes easier for people to travel places in order to either work or spend. Besides, even the jobs that are created directly are public sector jobs that will be needed for a long time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Nor was spending on fighter jets or prisons for unreported crimes.

It did, you're right. However, the actual allocation and timing of the money, much of which was suspect from what I've read (in mainstream-to-right sources like Maclean's), was not the Opposition's call. (If more had gone to things like public transportation, more good might have been done.) Again, I've never claimed that the Liberals had especially better alternative ideas. Lowering taxes at the same time was also not the Opposition's ideas.