Neal.F.

Gugsy, I agreee that calling the the legislature L'Assemblée Nationale is going a bit far, but as for calling the Premier "Le Premier ministre" it's a linguistic thing. In English, Le Premier ministre is referred to as the "premier" And as for Crouton, he's retiring to Ottawa. thank God we don't have to take him back here. Good riddance to the sorry old bastard. His behaviour with regard to the disaster in Halifax is inexcusable, and soooooo typical Chretien. Remember how the little crud decided that going skiing at Whistler was more impotrant than attending King Hussein's funeral..... Boris Yeltsin showed up though he was ill, but Crouton decided breaking the powder at dawn was more important than Canada's image abroad. He and that puked up excuse of a foreign minister have managed to turn canada into a pygmie on the world stage. Then where was the little turd during the balckout? Who knows for sure, but getting flunkies to scribble out notes by candlelight cannot be described as leadership. If that's not enough, the little crud is now musing about trying pot once he and his last loyalist Martin Cochon legalize it. If the Liberal party has any sense left, which i doubt, they'll oust the arrogant little weasel at their convention. The good of the party be damned , it's for the good of the country!

Defeated yes, but hammered no. I'll rephrase that... HE deserved to get hammered, but the fact that there is such a huge Liberal majority is going to make the job of winning back power more difficult. Had the Tories come up with 35-40 seats, Eves would have been toast anyway, and winning again in 4 years would not be as big a mountain to climb as it will be for -hopefully- Mr Flaherty. Flaherty has credibility among social conservatives, and is , like Harris unapologetic for what he believes.

I am not big on "students rights" . Up until a child reaches the age of majority, they are ultimately under their parents authority. . The parents then delgate some of that autority to the schools , expecting them to effect proper discipline and keep order during the day. If parents object to something a school is doing, then they should complain to the school's governing board (Which consists of other parents) or ultimately to the school board itself. That said, I'll address your concerns as I see them. While I am VERY strongly in favour of uniforms in public schools, the rule must be enforced in such a way that all families can comply without breaking the bank. My daughter's school basicaly says that the kids mus wear navy pants (or tunics/skirts for girls) and a white top, with a collar. They can have either a red or navy cardigan. While the school does offer cloting that qualifies as uniform, at not unreasonable prices, the option is left to the parents as to where they purchase said clothing, be it at garage sales, or Sears. Locks are another issue. School authorities must be provided with a way to get into a locker. Sorry, i don't believe that a student has the right to privacy, in a day and age where weapons and drugs are commonplace. But it is not unreasonable for them to ask you to buy a certain lock, unless there is a master key. To make you buy their lock, which they would proceed to cut to open is not acceptable. As for school supplies, I don't object to them insisting on certn brands for teh sake of uniformity. Our experience has been that the school insists on middle of the road brands, so the expense is easy to bear, and that there is no envy for the kid with the Prismacolour pencils rather than the Laurentian or Crayola. Now I do NOT object to companies who choose, for tax purposes and free advrtising to supply their productst o the schools, especially things that keep the fees we are charged for consumables to a minimum either.

The reason Mike Harris won elections, was that he said plainly whta he was going to do, and then did them. And then at re-election time, stood by what he did, made no apologies because he did exactly what he promised. No more, no less. The deal was sealed on the first day when all Ernie Eves could offer was vote for us because he of the sharp pointy head is not up to the job. -but ernie, why don't you tell us about your agenda? The complete lack thereof was the reason why the Tories lost. They reminded me of the proverbial cornered rat baring its teeth. By not offering anything, the Tories handed the province over to the Liberals who now have 4 years to undo all the great things that Mike Harris accomplished. There is no guarantee that the Tories would have won again had they stayed on the harris course of the CSR (which Liberal pundits are saying was what Ontarians voted to end.... what utter BS!) but it would have been a helluva lot closer, perhaps even a minority, which would have removed the excuse for the sweeping mandate that Dilton is going to claim he was given, and kept them more accountable and brought Ontario back to the polls to end the coming nightmare in two years instead of 4. The low turnout was, I believe the result of Tories that Eves could not inspire to come out. Liberals were winning ridings with fewer votes than last time, but the Tory vote just was not there. Eves notwithstanding, these conservatives are going to regret it. The silver lining is that now Jim Flaherty has another chance to get the Tories back on track for the next election. I beleive that most Tories like , or at least respect his social conservative principles, and just couldn't buy into Eves' act. Larry Grossman who led the Tories to their worst defeat ever was a victim of the times. Thisb time the Tories were victims of Ernie Eves. So-cons can't buy inmto the act of someone who months ago supported gay marriage and then flip flopped. Biography just does match philosophy. Eves has always been pro-choice on abortion... And the fact that he did not bother to marry Isabel Basset is further evidence of how much he really believes in the traditional family and its values. In closing thisn post mortem, I will point once again to more evidence that Tories who alienate the social conservative element of the coalition cannot win: The Family Coalition Party, whom I would have voted for did very well for a so-called fringe party. In several ridings they garnered well over 1000 votes, and finished 4th. In Brampton West-Missisauga. Their vote total was very close to making the difference that could have allowed Tony Clement to sneak back in. They made the difference in Missisauga South too. In any case, they garnered between 2 and 4% in many ridings. Many of those who stayed home were probably so-cons. In any case, now is the time for the PCs to let the dust settle. It is not the time to engage in internecine warfare. Everyone knowns where the blame lies, and there is no point in rubbing salt in the wounds. Ernie Eves should be allowed whatever time he needs, up to 18 months, to either land a job in the private sector or reconcile himself to serving as an MPP. Then he should reseign as leader, and let a race to succeed him begin. The main reason why the party must not start finger pointing is so they don't end up looking like the Canadian Alliance of two years ago. The leadership must be a prize worth fighting for, so that it attracts several serious contenders, and spo tha they can put together an actual program to sell to voters in 2007. If they fail to emerge from this as a cohesive unit with positive ideas, Dilton Doily will win again....by default.

Uh oh... If Craig is voting for the Dippers, we COULD be looking at a repeat of 1990!!!!!! Geez, didn't that vote happen in October too??? Premier Howie.... has a ring to it.... but alas... it'll be Premier E. Reptilian Kitten-Eater. What a nightmare.

Numbers like that make a Tory comeback in 4 years realistic. A well placed friend is predicting Liberal minority. Lib: 50, PC 39 NDP 14. Personally I don't see the Dippers getiing any higher than 10. Most people however are predicting 65+ for Dilton's Doilies.

Election prediction Project: Final numbers: LP: 69 PC: 26 NDP: 8 I'm not sure I agree with all their predictions. I think the NDP may well get a ninth seat....Oshawa. and hold Hamilton west for #10 I also expect David Tsubouchi, Janet Ecker, Frank Klees, Elizabeth Witmer & Diane Cunningham to hold for the Tories in spite of what Election predicton has to say. It's all going to depend on who turns out to vote. The NDP never die, because their supporters are true believers and will come out to vote come hell or high water. They also attract those who say "a pox on both your houses!" They could surprise, and if enough people do vote for them, it could upset the Liberal applecart further. Not so much in terms of NDP seats, but it might once again allow many Tories to hold theirs. IF that is, Tories are not too despondent to bother to go out. They should mobilize every effort to get the vote out, if for no other reason than to save the furniture. Flaherty, or Clement would all have a better chance of unseating the Lieberals if they can score 35-40 seats instead of a paltry 26. Another factor is Liberal smugness. If the Liberals get 50% in the polls, that's one thing, but will they be so self-confident as to not bother going out to vote? Liberal supporters tend to be younger, and less inclined to get out on voting day than Conservatives who tend to be older and take voting more seriously, even as a responsibility. This election could be much closer than the pundits are saying IF all the above come into play. If neither Liberals Nor tories come out in great enough numbers, the NDP could surprise many. I've heard that Howard Hamptomn was seen clearly as the best among the three after the debate.. The real worry, is that as they go to cast their ballots, many soft votes may just go to the NDP in protest, and we'll have 1990 all over again. Not likely, but you never know. Or it could be even more lopsided for the Liberals if they get their vote out, and the Tories fail. I'm going to call it as: Lib: 58 PC: 35 NDP 10 I simply can't believe that many Ontarians could be so stupid and actually vote Liberal. I can't help but think that mnany will think of Dalton while in line, and mark their X somewhere else. I can't see it as anything more than a one-term housecleaning. In spite of my prediction, I'm praying for a miracle: a slight Tory majority, or a Lieberal minority, so Dalton can be gone in two years, before he does too much damage. What are your final comments and numbers?

He should have let MacKay walk away from the table. Then he would look like the one showing goodwill. MacKay would look once again like a little weasel with no principles. Now they both look foolish, and Canadians have run out of patience with both. There needs to be a merger, and a changing of the guard. It may already be too late.

It is as bad as that. The Tories are dommed. You can take that to the bank. MacKay has shown he's not ready for the Big leagues, and Harper has probbaly overplayed his hand on this one. He should have done backflips to make it happen.. So what if Borotsik, Clark, Bachand and Brison would not play ball, leave them to their miserable destinies. A few recalcitrant red tories sacrificed for the future of the movement? Small price to pay. Now Harper will be painted as unreasonable whether this ios the case or not. And those who had supported him up to now, a significant number of them will say "to hell with it" and jump aboard the Martin bandwagon. Let's say 25% of allaince supporters jump. That could tip the scales in 7-10 Alberta ridings, and could hand a goodly number of BC & Saskatchewan ridings back to the NDP. It is going to be a drubbing. And one from which Canada's system may never fully recover.

Totally agree. BOTH parties will fall to 8% or lower nationally. And thoroughly deserve it. They teased us, then walked away. Either they get back to the table, and wrap it up by Oct 10th, or it's over, and the dynamic switches from Liberal/Conservative to Liberal/NDP. What a sick bloody joke.

Gugsy is right they both look like Horse's asses, and my bet is that Canadians in general will say "A pox on both your houses" Who is going to trust guys who can't get it together even when death is staring them both in the face? Nobody will take them seriously anymore. They have blown it. This bonehead move may have even cost the CA some seats in Alberta.

The 14 points that Harper presented were vey fair and more generous than Tories could have hoped for. As far as I'm concerned the Tories have committed political suicide.... WIPING OUT THE DEBT? and they turned that down? Thanks to the Red Tories, we will have Liberal governments for the forseeable future. I hope the blue ones have enough common sense to leave Clark, Borotsik, Bachand sitting as independents.

The two conservative parties have utterly blown it, and have now ensured that Canada will be governed by the Liberals for many years to come, perhaps even in perpetuity. Many conservative voters will hold their noses and vote for Paul Martin, because he is a businessman, and many have convinced themselves that he is one of them. Perhaps Mr. Martin is more fiscally conservative than Jean Chretien, but that is not the issue. What is at stake here is that Canada may well fall under one party rule Serious players will now see the Liberal party as the institution through which all public policy will be formulated. It is wellfunded, and this is not likely to change now that Mr. Chretien has stacked the financing laws in their favour. There will be no serious money coming in to either the PC party or the Canadian Alliance, because frankly they have not demonstated that they deserve any. I said at the outset of these talks that the two parties must either come together, or they'll hang together. And this is precisely what is likely to happen. Stephen Harper may think he has the advantage, because now Peter MacKay will be seen as doubly untrustworthy after 1) Signing the deal with David Orchard at the convention, and 2) reneging on said deal with Mr.Orchard on the issue of talking merger. Mr Harper risks the whole thing being seen as more Alliance venality. At the end of the day, Mr Harper may come out ahead of the PCs, insofar as there may only be one of the two left standing after the Martin juggernaut rolls over the country next spring, but it may well be a Pyrrhic victory. While The PC Party may well lose Party status, or be all but obliterated, The Alliance may well return to parliament a bruised and bleeding rump from Alberta with a couple of stragglers from BC and Saskatchewan, and possibly fewer than 30 seats. I have been made privy to some internal Liberal polling that puts the NDP neck & neck with the Liberals in BC, a strong second in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Third in Ontario. It may well be that the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be Jack Layton, as a result of the continued Conservative schism. What is truly sad, is that if both party leaders had demonstrated a willingness to fall on their swords for the good of the country, a United Conservative Party under someone of the calibre of Mike Harris or Ralph Klein could have given the Martin Liberals a real run for their money, and restored hope to the country. Now the likely result is the lowest voter turnout in history as the Liberals firmly establish themselves once and for all as Canada's sole governing party. It may well be that the NDP might become the centre left alternative, and eventually become government. Way to go, guys. To quote Liberal strategist and spin Doctor Warren Kinsella, "It is truly a great time to be a Liberal in Canada."

Have you ever wondered whether Red Tories are nothing more than a Liberal plot to retain perpetual power? I guarantee you that had Brian Mulroney not carried out his takeover of the party from Joe Clark, John Turner, patronage appointments and bum-patting notwithstanding, would have had Geills call in the interior decorators for 24 Sussex. The CA seems to have come to terms with the fact that unless they can get all conservatives together , they will not be coming to power anytime within the nextv 20-30 years, and most Blue tories feel teh same way. It's just the Red ones squawking about how the party will be swept to power again as if it's a matter of rotation. There's no shame in talking merger. The Conservatives in Quebec did a merger, and the result was the Union Nationale which held power for 32 of the next 40 years after a Liberal stranglehold that endured from 1896-1930 or so. The Conservatives' merger with the Progressives resulted in a return to power for Tories after being reduced to a rump by Mackenzie King. Even the NDP was born of a merger, or more accurately a coalition, after the CCF had run its course. If the Red tories don't want to acknowledge the reality that they'll never win, then they should be gone. Let them be honest with themselves and go join the Liberals, or for some, the NDP. (Now, from where did Joe Clark draw his one convert after becoming leader again? answer: Angela Vautour {Beausejour Petitcodiac} defected to the Tories from the NDP.) Enough said.

Latest numbers I've heard from BC show the NDP threatening a big comeback there. They and the Liberals were neck and neck with the Alliance running third. NDP is up in Sask. too. Don't forget, in '88, the NDP took 19 of 28 BC seats. They are poised to add to their totals in Ontario too. Meanwhile the Alliance is going to have trouble holding 50 seats if they take a hit in BC and Sask. In any case, failure to merge does not bode well. The merger gives the right a shot at mike harris, at least 120 seats, and possibly government.

That sir, is a cop out of the worst kind. Abortion is murder. to be "personally opposed" but believe it is OK for someone else to decide in their case is like saying that one is opposed to murder, but if someone else decides it's OK to kill someone who is inconvenient, that's just fine. What it boils down to is this: Do we, or do we not have the fundamental right to life? yes or no? Does someone else have the right to arbitrarily decide that someone else's life needs to end, if so, who? the pro-aborts have decided that a woman in consultation with a doctor (wasn't there something called the hyppocratic oath?) can decide to murder a baby for the crime of being inconvenient? It sounds to me , Sir, with all due respect, that they are trying to defend the indefensible. It also sounds to me like "me too"ism. The polls say that opposition to "a woman's right to choose" is unpopular, so let's just sweep it under the carpet, and say "well... we don't like it but who are we to tell someone what choices to make"..... Sounds like an Al Gore answer.... Maybe you are right that most Alliance voters identify better with the Dumbocruds.

Alliance fanatic, i hope that isn't Joe Clark "Metoo"ism coming out of you..... Most Alliance MPs are NOT in favour of abortion. The vast majority are oppoised to it either completely, or will grant an exception in the case where the mother's life is in peril. You can find infotrmation on who syupports what here. The people at lifesite compiled the information from a questionnnaire they sent out. They also looked at the voting and previous political history of each candidate in the '97 election. Keith Martin is openly pro abortion. believed to be pro choice are Bill Gilmour. , John Duncan, Howard Hillstrom & Val Meredith. It is also a scary thought that Most alliance members prefer the Dumbocruds in the US. Sounds like more "Me too"ism.

Let's put it this way.... if they are NOT pro merger, then whether they realize it or not, they are pro-Liberal. And Pro-one-party-rule. The PCs either have to merge, or be wiped out. It is certain they will Not keep party status against martin, in their current financial state, and it is possible they may actuallty lose every single seat they have. BOth Parties have something the other needs, the giving of which ensures not only survival, but under the right leader possibly government. If they do not get it together, the PCs will be obliterated, and the CA probably reduced.

I think if anything derails this process, it will be the Red Tories. And if they do, they will have signed the death warrant for that party. So either way, the Alliance comes out on top. They are the ones who give the appearance of wanting to make something happen, and that just may save their skin. Especially if a few Tory MPs from downeast go over. Joe Clark is lame duck anyway. He's not running again. If the process succeeds, great! if it fails, the remainder of the Blue Tories will make the move, since refusal is akin to death. Will it make a differecne at teh end of the day? A full mergr with leadeership contest could result in Paul Martin's world crashing down. If they talks fail, the CA will survive, but as a shadow of its current self. The Tories WILL be obliterated. We will have a MAssive Martin win, with NDP opposition. That's the price of Failure. And we will have the Red Tories to thank.

Politics makes starnge bedfellows, doesn't it? Elsie Wayne arch so-con on the same team as Scott Brison and Andre Bachand, and Jolly Joe himself the three most notorious social Liberals in caucus. I suspect that Gary Schellenberger's objection results from the bitterly contested by-election that he won. There was some serious mudslinging between his and Marian Meinen's respective camps. I suspect Elsie's case is all about brand loyalty. Unfortunately this is one oif the few matters on which I disagree with her. her opposition only helps to ensure the ultimate burial of the conservative movement in Canada, as many will come to terms with the Liberals at that point, which will result in more left liberals leavingby the back door and votinmg for the NDP, and ensuring that what's left of the alliance after the next election is third, or even 4th party. Imagine Jack LAyton as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal opposition!!!! The Tories are at the point where if they go it alone, they will lose party status, and perhaps face complete obliteration. A pyrrhic victory for the Alliance. I Think Brison and Clark are lost causes. Clark doesn't matter anyway, since he's retiring. Cal center will go to Jim prentice, a pro-merger candidate. Like the other JC, it would be best for all if he retire sooner rather than later. Brison and Svend should statrt a new party: The rainbow coalition. Bachand will have to see the light sooner or later. If he defects to the lieberals, he might get re-elected, he would do well to remember , however, that the major reason he squeaked back in again, was because he didn't pull a Price/StJacques/Harvey move and sell his soul for the govt. backbenches. jean Charest, the man on whose coattails he rode into office , might be helpful in persuading him to stay. After all if Keith Martin has a place in the CA, Bachand will survive as an MP for the new entity. As for the undecideds, the only one who I think MIGHT be a problem is pro-gay/proabort Rick Borotsik. Both Mssrs Thompson and Doyle are pro-life. The bottom line is, it's either dance together or hang together.

The Mulroney government was the traditional FisCon/SoCon coalition. It fell apart partly because the So-con faction felt screwed over when Mulroney tossed the abortion issue to the courts to decide, among other slights. Mulroney had campaigned out west in '84 as a pro-lifer. The Reform Party and the Christian Heritage Party were formed partly by those who felt the Tories had disenfranchised them. Both were formed prior to the 1988 election, and in that election, the Reformers won 2% and the CHP 1%. And had the Tories not turned that election into a referendum on free trade, those totals would have been higher, and the Tories may well have lost their majority. If you don't believe me, look what happened in the by-election that took place only a few weeks after the election. The then MP for Beaver River, a Mr. Dhamer passed away a day or two after thelection, and a by-election was held, and was won by Deborah Grey, and the rest is history. Look what happened to the Ontario Tories when Ernie Eves effectively abandoned the So-con wing. I believe this is one reason why they will fare so poorly next thursday, is that nobody believes Mr Eves' claims to a social conservative rebirth.

As the merger happens, we will see Martin exposed for what he is. A Liberal. As the ascension of the new Conservative party begins, and the media spotlight turns to Mike Harris, many votes that were parked in the Liberal column for lack of a real governing alternative will slide away. The left flank of the Lieberals has already been eaten into by the NDP, so you'll see Martin talking more like a leftist before too long. Business loved Mike harris. Once the merger happens, the taps will be turned on to the conservatives again, and the Liberal reservoir will start to dry up. he will be xposed for the empty suit he reeally is, and the house of cards will collapse.

Crouton will give her the Plum job, not Martin. The goal is to so alienate the left wing of the Lieberals that they go and vote NDP. Does anyone here think for a minute that Crouton will want to watch paul martin rack up a bigger majority than he did? her reward will come once she pisses on Martin at the convention. Then' she'll be off to Italy.... And Conservative leader, Mike harris will be able to ask Mr Martin why he allowed such a brazen political patronage appointment to stand... "You sir, did have a choice"

I'll be very blunt. If his caucus does NOT accept the deal, a deal carefully hammered between people of goodwill from both parties, especially Mazankowski, Bill Davis and Loyola hearn of their own party, people who have demonstrated high ethical standards, and can be , by no means considered sell-outs, the PC party will die. The Alliance will take a beating, but the PCs would be obliterated, and deservedly so. AND we will have one-party-rule, probably for the balance of the lifetimes on most people who post here. If they don't dance together, they'll hang together..... There's your future, perpetual Liberal government, with NDP opposition. If Scott Brison and Andre Bachand aren't happy, they are free to leave at any time. Mr Bachand, before he calls the CA rednecks, should remember that if Keith Martin can have a home in that party, then surely there will room for himself in a new entity. As for Brison, He had better realize that unless he wants to dream of being FinMin while scowling at the Liberals from the opposition benches, perhaps as a member of a 4th or 5th party, he too, had better sign on. Every conservative government ever elected ij this country has been a coalition of FisCons and SoCons. He'd better learn to take some water in his Screech.

I'm making my choices here based on one thing. electability. I am convinced that in spite of the big emphasis the media puts on youth, it is a liability, rather than an asset. a leader should be mature , but not geriatric. Rarely does one have the life experience to run a country, let alone survive the slings and barbs of an election campaign against the Liberals. Brian Mulroney was a rare exception to the rule at 44. we also have to keep in mind that whoever wins will be up against Paul Martin, and the Liberal organization which is flush with cash, and the fact that time is of the essence like never before. A+ Mike Harris (proven talent, politically, and ethically. Did exactly what he said he would do, and stood by it when up for re-election. A real straight talker. Canada needs a CSR and right about now. While he lacks French, if he could get someone like Mario Dumont abaord as Quebec lieutenant, demonstration that a young Quebecer will have a big say and bright future in a Harris govt, then things can happen in a big way) A+ Ralph Klein (doubt he'd be interested if it meant standiing in Harris' way. Will probably endorse Harris) A Gordon Campbell ( Drawbacks: Has not yet completed a full term as Premier, and the DWI. However, has made some tough decisions as premier.) A Gary Filmon (3 time provincial premier. ran a decent government, which included Brian Pallister and Vic Toews. Drawback: not as well known as the others, so he gets an A rather than A +) A Jean Charest ( Too recently elected.... He has potential, but needs to show us what he can do.) A Bernard Lord (a good solid appealing choice to many. Bilingual, but needs more time. 37 is too young.) B Jim Prentice (Would make A if he was better known and there's precious little time to "get acquainted")) B Jim Flaherty (He will likely be the leading contender to replace the defeated Eves as Ont. PC leader, and as Premier after "Buyer's remorse" sets in with Ontario voters on October 3d. Otherwise I'd make him an A) B Bernard Lord (a good solid appealing choice to many. Bilingual, but needs more time. 37 is too young.) B Jason Kenney (an excelent choice, would make A, but for his age (or lack thereof) and the fact that the best way for a United Right to succeed would be by drawing in contenders from outside either caucus.) B Stockwell Day (has distinguished himself as an MP and forign affairs critic, however, would probably be dogged by previous baggage) B Preston Manning ( Like Mulroney, Davis, Maz & co, would contribute more at this point in the role of eminence grise) C Mario Dumont: (i've been generous in giving him a C. He'd be higher had he fared better in the election....But once again, too young. Needs to prove himself. Should consider running as a candidate in riviere du loup) C Stephen Harper ( Has not been able to move the masses. He will be remembered well for falling on his sword for the good of the country, and would be a shoo-in for Alberta Premier once Kleinb steps down) C Peter Mackay (Has not been able to move the masses. He will be remembered well for falling on his sword for the good of the country, and would be a shoo-in for Nova Scotia Premier once John Hamm steps down) F -----: Scott Brison ( No thanks. He forced MacKay into the position of having to sign on with Orchard. Furthermore, Conservative governments have always been elected as a coalition of fiscal and social conservatives. He has proven he can't work with the latter, based on his demands for the firing of Elsie Wayne as Dep. leader for having the temerity to say that homosexuals should keep their private lives private. The little weasel forgot who kept the party afloat after the 1993 drubbing.)