Conservatives Panic?

[Wild Bill]

Actually, Wild Bill, every vote counts, even in EDs where the winner is a foregone conclusion. As for the bulk of your post, I can't make head nor tail of the point you're trying to make. Maybe you could unmix your inconsistent tropes, imagery, and insults, and make your case with some simplicity and logical rigour. You know, make it a little more "academic" so that it, in fact, makes sense. Assuming there's some sense to be made.

Okay! Let me put it simpler!

In theory, every vote counts. In practice, it doesn't.

If it doesn't, who or what is served by going through the motions?

Again, I'm a techie. I believe that if you drop something it falls at 30metres/sec/sec. A volt will shove an amp through an ohm. The cheque is NOT in the mail!

And NEVER try to fill an inside straight!

If you want to convince me that a vote for an independent or a Libertarian is anything more than a token then you would need to use math or give me recent historical examples of where such a candidate actually got voted in AND made the difference on a bill of substance!

Please don't try to use Chuck Cadman. He was a Reformer who fell victim to a nomination dirty trick and wound up winning the seat anyway. At heart he was still a Reformer, as proven by his actions in voting according to his constituents wishes.

What else have you got?

[Stephen Best]

Again, I mean this NOT as a personal criticism but merely as an observation about how different schools of political supporters actually THINK! I offer no blanket value-judgement as it depends on each specific situation as to which is the most appropriate philosophy.

That is the reason I feel Dion is going to lose more than Harper this coming election.

For the record, Wild Bill, the first political campaign I ran was for the International Fund for Animal Welfare during the 1974 federal election. It was a campaign about the Canadian seal hunt entitled "Where does candidate stand on the killing of baby seals? Demand an answer." The last campaign I was involved in was for new federal party, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada which I co-founded and am the Chief Agent, and that was/is in the current by-election in Guelph. I have run or been involved in political campaigns, as I mentioned, around the world. I know something about politics. I was one of the founders of Environment Voters. With all due respect, there are very few people who know more about the machinations and practice of politics than me.

[Stephen Best]

In theory, every vote counts. In practice, it doesn't.

In practice it does. First, in Canada the more votes a party gets the greater its public funding. So if you're a voter and you know a particular candidate is going to win, you're still better off casting a vote for your preferred candidate because it will give your party of choice increased monies. Why do you think Jim Harris, the previous leader of the Green Party, was so obsessed with running a full slate of candidates even though it was unlikely that even one Green Party candidate would get elected?

Second, no matter who wins, he or she is always cognizant of the magnitude of the win. If a candidate's margin of victory is reduced because of an increased Green Party vote, for example, it generally follows that the winning candidate--no matter how inevitable their win--will take it into account in their policy decisions their constituent's interest in "green" issues.

The more votes a particular policy option can shift, the more those who are elected will give it credence.

Third, electoral districts are fluid. As time goes by, political interests shift and local demographics shifts. Consequently, not infrequently, inevitable candidates get complacent and lose to a more intrepid opponent.

Votes matter. As do well-run campaigns.

[Moonbox]

As I say, I've experienced Stephen Harper's hypocrisy and venality first hand. To understand Harper, all you need to know is that everything he does is calculated to serve his personal ambitions, and he will betray anything, anybody, and any value if necessary to have his way. You trust him at your peril.

For someone so well versed in politics, you have to wonder where you come up with such a biased and unfounded statement like this.

As far as the NCC and gag law issue is concerned, your declaration of hypocrisy I find somewhat amusing. Harper campaigned to have it repealed, it went to the Supreme Court and was upheld. This was when the Liberals were the ruling goverment. Chretien came up with that. Now that Harper is leading the government with the CPC, Liberals and their supporters (the Toronto Star in particular), cry like the babies they are because a law they enacted isn't being repealed.

At this point in time, why WOULD Harper repeal the law? Really? Yes, I guess it's something he probably considers the right thing to do, but I'm sure there are thousands of things he thinks are the right thing to do but are probably a stupid thing to do. Why repeal a gag law that your opponents (who are completely broke now) enacted in the first place and which is currently crippling their ability to advertise and promote their cause?

If I were him, I'd do nothing as well. Now that the Liberals are getting a taste of it, maybe they'll repeal this (another one of Trudeau's abominations) next time they form a government.

[Stephen Best]

At this point in time, why WOULD Harper repeal the [gag] law?

He wouldn't, because he does not, in fact, have the principles he professed to have when he raised hundreds of thousand dollars from trusting NCC supporters to fight the gag law. He duped NCC supporters into believing he was a man of ethics and integrity who believes in fundamental democratic principles. He, in fact, does not. Harper only believes in what is good for him personally. He is, truly, the most hypocritical, self-serving politician I have ever met. I dread what he would do with a majority government.

[M.Dancer]

I doubt he could in a minority gov't repeal a law that the Liberals enacted, nor do I believe that the Liberals could be enduced to vote and repeal their own law even if at the moment this law hinders their own efforts. Carping and harping on this is just partisan whinging and entirely self serving.

[Stephen Best]

Carping and harping on this is just partisan whinging and entirely self serving.

Perhaps you don't hold fundamental democratic principles and Charter rights in high esteem, but I do. And, as I've just been involved in a legal action which forced the Ontario government to bring its electoral law in accordance with the Charter, you can be damn sure that my 'carping' and 'harping' will continue.

As I and others fight to defend those rights, you can either use them or lose them. Your choice, M. Dancer.

You are aware that if we abandon those rights, what looms is fascism or worse. Is that what you want? Because that is the end result of your views, lack of political involvement, and deference to authority and autocratic political leaders like Harper.

[Wild Bill]

He wouldn't, because he does not, in fact, have the principles he professed to have when he raised hundreds of thousand dollars from trusting NCC supporters to fight the gag law. He duped NCC supporters into believing he was a man of ethics and integrity who believes in fundamental democratic principles. He, in fact, does not. Harper only believes in what is good for him personally. He is, truly, the most hypocritical, self-serving politician I have ever met. I dread what he would do with a majority government.

Ah, Stephen! Your post is an example of what I was talking about when I wrote about different ways of thinking. You just blew off Moonbox's logical and "real world" analysis of why Harper did what he did with a rant about your impression of Harper's character.

Now, your impression could possibly be correct! I don't think so myself but hey, I'm not in a position to know for sure. Even so, Moonbox argues from logic and evidence instead of emotional impressions.

Again, I'm not saying which manner of thinking works better. Just that if you want to convince a "head" person to agree with you then you shouldn't put all your effort into an appeal from the "heart".

This is also what I've observed over the years from many advocates of "left wing" causes. They tend to think that because when they preach to their own choir their argument is readily believed that any other choir will be just as receptive.

Perhaps the present day estrangement between left and right is an indication that the balance of power in our society has gotten seriously out of whack. We need each other to have a truly progressive society. For the past few decades modern liberalism has had the upper hand in Canada. This has led to some successes but also left us with many things that just don't work, like health care that's going broke and leaving people on gurneys in hospital hallways.

Oh well, perhaps if I ran as the leader of the "Fat Angry Rocknroll Techie" party I could fix everything in a weekend or two...

[Moonbox]

He wouldn't, because he does not, in fact, have the principles he professed to have when he raised hundreds of thousand dollars from trusting NCC supporters to fight the gag law. He duped NCC supporters into believing he was a man of ethics and integrity who believes in fundamental democratic principles. He, in fact, does not. Harper only believes in what is good for him personally. He is, truly, the most hypocritical, self-serving politician I have ever met. I dread what he would do with a majority government.

He fought tooth and nail with the NCC to get the gag law repealed. It didn't work, the Supreme Court saw to that. Now he is no longer part of the NCC, but rather the Prime Minister of Canada. His principles would suggest he'd ban gay marriage and abortion as well, but he's not going to do that either. Why? Because it would be the end of his political career.

As an expert opinion on politicians and the inner-workings of government, you have to wonder why you haven't been able to come to the simple conclusion that politicians, by their very nature, seek to extend their positions to as much as possible. I don't think any of us are under the illusion that any of our recent Prime Ministers didn't have their own best interests in mind.

Is it hypocritical to hide behind election gag laws after you denounced them for years? Yes, no argument. With that being said, Harper was not the one who enacted this law in the first place. That was Chretien, and as far as I'm concerned it's COMPLETELY ethical to have the Liberals taste their own medecine for a few years after fighting to keep it in place all the way to the Supreme Court. That's poetic justice, and pretty funny to boot.

If you insist on playing an unfair game, don't go crying when your opponent turns your own rules against you.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps you don't hold fundamental democratic principles and Charter rights in high esteem, but I do. And, as I've just been involved in a legal action which forced the Ontario government to bring its electoral law in accordance with the Charter, you can be damn sure that my 'carping' and 'harping' will continue.

As I and others fight to defend those rights, you can either use them or lose them. Your choice, M. Dancer.

You are aware that if we abandon those rights, what looms is fascism or worse. Is that what you want? Because that is the end result of your views, lack of political involvement, and deference to authority and autocratic political leaders like Harper.

I take it then you are in favour of Parties benefiting from unaccountable 3rd parties spending like drunken sailors in order to circumvent spending laws? That's not democracy and in the case of a propagandaist like yourself who earns a living selling other peoples political agendas, entirely self serving. I'm reminded of the Tobacco companies complianing about not being allowed to advertise...

Myself I support the gag law. If single issue groups want to lobby against or for an issue is one thing, but to use their leverage to work for another party is anti democratic at it's core.

[M.Dancer]

You are aware that if we abandon those rights, what looms is fascism or worse.

Godwin's law in five, four, three....

[Moonbox]

Godwin's law in five, four, three....

Two.....

Come on people someone has to bite! We're almost there!

[Keepitsimple]

I think we may be falling for another Conservative ploy. Harper might have no intention of asking the GG to dissolve Parliament. He could reconvene Parliament and eventually create some poison pill legislation subject to a confidence motion. The Liberals will not be able to support it and ultimately bring down the government - or maybe they'll continue to abstain. Either way, all the election hype and Harper-bashing by Dion and the media over supposedly breaking the spirit of a fixed election date will look like the foolish talk that it would prove to be...... and meanwhile, the Liberals would be spending more and more money that they do not have in preparing for an election that may or may not come. We'll see very shortly.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[AngusThermopyle]

Come on people someone has to bite! We're almost there!

Okay I will.

Our current government is nothing but a thinly veiled doppelganger of Natzi'ish Hitlerian proportions. Hell! The Prime Minister even eats kittens and beats his cabinet members daily.

Not to mention how he wants to execute everyone who doesn't wear a cowboy hat! He also wants to ban thongs on pain of death.

There. was that good enough, or should I give it another try?

[Wild Bill]

Okay I will.

Our current government is nothing but a thinly veiled doppelganger of Natzi'ish Hitlerian proportions. Hell! The Prime Minister even eats kittens and beats his cabinet members daily.

Not to mention how he wants to execute everyone who doesn't wear a cowboy hat! He also wants to ban thongs on pain of death.

There. was that good enough, or should I give it another try?

Gosh darn it, Angus! Do we have to declare the thread ended now?

[capricorn]

There. was that good enough, or should I give it another try?

What about his connection to Bush, eh??? What about his love for the military, eh??

You afraid to tackle that one, eh???

Let me then. Harper is a wannabe dictator and war criminal, who won't fart until Bush & Co. tell him it's OK. Why do you think he's so fat and full of hot air, eh????

How did I do?

[Moonbox]

What about his connection to Bush, eh??? What about his love for the military, eh??

You afraid to tackle that one, eh???

Let me then. Harper is a wannabe dictator and war criminal, who won't fart until Bush & Co. tell him it's OK. Why do you think he's so fat and full of hot air, eh????

How did I do?

You didn't use Nazi or Hitler in your post. You fail at Godwin's Law.

It's okay though...that's not really a bad thing

[AngusThermopyle]

So mine was better?

Yay!!!

[Stephen Best]

Myself I support the gag law. If single issue groups want to lobby against or for an issue is one thing, but to use their leverage to work for another party is anti democratic at it's core.

Fundamental to representative democracy is interest groups competing--and using what ever leverage they cab create-- to elect the government that reflects their views. Indeed, public policy is decided by competition between interest groups and nothing else. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how politics, in fact, works. You may have a view about how you think politics ought to be, but by failing to act in a way that recognizes what politics, in fact, is your cherished issues (if you have any) no matter how compelling or necessary are doomed to failure.

It was unions using the leverage you decry to elect pro-worker legislators that gave us fairer wages and safer work places. It was civil rights groups that used leverage to elect representatives who would reduce discrimination. Do I need to enumerate other issues addressed by interest groups--self-serving and altruistic--using their leverage to elect representatives beholden to their causes? And, yes, big tobacco is one of them. Welcome to democracy, M. Dancer, where even the bad guys get to participate.

For those engaged in trying to improve the world we live in, failure--as you exhibit--to grasp the reality of politics, rather than a naive notion of how it ought to be, is the single most significant reason that greater progressive has not been made.

Do you truly believe that democracy is enhanced by preventing environmental groups from working in elections to elect governments that would implement sound environmental laws? If you do, you have no understanding of how the electoral system works and how its perversions have impeded Canada implementing environmental laws that would, in fact, protect the environment.

The paucity of what people like you actually know about politics--in general and particular--never ceases to truly amaze me. The tragedy of that is that politics decides or influences almost everything in our lives. Because you don't understand politics, you've given a great level of control over your life to people who do, and some of them do not have your best interests at heart. But I can tell you this, they are glad you're a naive political fool, because, as a consequence, you don't matter in their campaigns to force public policy that will serve their interests.

[Stephen Best]

Is it hypocritical to hide behind election gag laws after you denounced them for years? Yes, no argument. With that being said, Harper was not the one who enacted this law in the first place. That was Chretien, and as far as I'm concerned it's COMPLETELY ethical to have the Liberals taste their own medecine for a few years after fighting to keep it in place all the way to the Supreme Court. That's poetic justice, and pretty funny to boot.

If you insist on playing an unfair game, don't go crying when your opponent turns your own rules against you.

Harper not only allowed the gag laws to stand (when he could have repealed) he further restricted the electoral rights of ordinary citizens to campaign in elections. He tightened the gag laws.

The notion that Chretien should be punished at the expense of the democratic rights of the rest of us is perverse.

And lastly, I don't cry. What am saying is that Harper, who claimed he was as a better, more ethical person than any Liberal, is more hypocritical than those he criticized.

Now if there are some--perhaps you Moonbox--who have no standards to which they'll hold the legislators whom they fawn over and worship, that's their democratic right. Don't include me among them.

As I say, Harper's public policies are decided based on how they serve Harper, not Canada nor the Canadian people. There is no principle, person, or ideal he will not profess, betray, or destroy in order to placate his personal ambitions, whatever they may be. In that, as a Canadian politician, he is unique. Do politicians, in general, take into account their self-interest when they make decisions? Yes. To the extent that they will permit their self-interest to override all other considerations? Very rarely. Harper is the rare exception, and he's a dangerous one because he has no ethical principles beyond the petulant, spoiled brat, infantile "Goodness is what's good for Stephen."

[Wild Bill]

Fundamental to representative democracy is interest groups competing--and using what ever leverage they cab create-- to elect the government that reflects their views. Indeed, public policy is decided by competition between interest groups and nothing else. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how politics, in fact, works. You may have a view about how you think politics ought to be, but by failing to act in a way that recognizes what politics, in fact, is your cherished issues (if you have any) no matter how compelling or necessary are doomed to failure.

It was unions using the leverage you decry to elect pro-worker legislators that gave us fairer wages and safer work places. It was civil rights groups that used leverage to elect representatives who would reduce discrimination. Do I need to enumerate other issues addressed by interest groups--self-serving and altruistic--using their leverage to elect representatives beholden to their causes? And, yes, big tobacco is one of them. Welcome to democracy, M. Dancer, where even the bad guys get to participate.

For those engaged in trying to improve the world we live in, failure--as you exhibit--to grasp the reality of politics, rather than a naive notion of how it ought to be, is the single most significant reason that greater progressive has not been made.

Do you truly believe that democracy is enhanced by preventing environmental groups from working in elections to elect governments that would implement sound environmental laws? If you do, you have no understanding of how the electoral system works and how its perversions have impeded Canada implementing environmental laws that would, in fact, protect the environment.

The paucity of what people like you actually know about politics--in general and particular--never ceases to truly amaze me. The tragedy of that is that politics decides or influences almost everything in our lives. Because you don't understand politics, you've given a great level of control over your life to people who do, and some of them do not have your best interests at heart. But I can tell you this, they are glad you're a naive political fool, because, as a consequence, you don't matter in their campaigns to force public policy that will serve their interests.

I would agree with you Stephen that lobby groups have become very adept at playing the system. I've been watching for years as a small minority here and there will achieve their ends. Particularly with Liberal governments, who are masters at the art of brokerage politics.

That being said, I've been struck by the fact that whenever I talk to someone from such groups they are rightfully proud of their successes but blissfully unaware of any collateral effects.

I would submit that their very success has incubated a rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority. Certainly it has resulted in a huge increase in apathy and cynicism towards politics. Those that aren't capable, inclined or in a position to play the brokerage and lobby game feel that governments respond to the tail and not the whole dog. If you're not part of the tail then no one cares about your values and how you feel about issues. So why vote at all? Why trust ANY politician? From Elizabeth May to Jesus Christ.

We are primed for backlashes. Look at how the Reform Party grew. It doesn't matter if they were your own preference or not. They came from nowhere and in a decade were not only the Opposition but came close to being the government. I submit that their success was partially a result of a backlash against the system you espouse. The PC's may have successfully taken them over and negated the populist portion of their movement but that doesn't mean that all those Canadians have changed how they feel.

So yes, you may have an accurate picture of "the way things work". You just may not have considered that things change and sometimes actions promote effects. Sometimes, although we may not have realized it, we get what we asked for...

[Topaz]

You didn't use Nazi or Hitler in your post. You fail at Godwin's Law.

It's okay though...that's not really a bad thing

Every time I see Harper, his side profile looks like Charles De Gaulle. He's tall, potbelly, long nose and walks just like him De gaulle!

[Stephen Best]

I would submit that their very success has incubated a rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority. Certainly it has resulted in a huge increase in apathy and cynicism towards politics. Those that aren't capable, inclined or in a position to play the brokerage and lobby game feel that governments respond to the tail and not the whole dog. If you're not part of the tail then no one cares about your values and how you feel about issues. So why vote at all? Why trust ANY politician? From Elizabeth May to Jesus Christ.

The fact is, Wild Bill, "rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority" doesn't matter unless those people are willing to organize and take overt action. That's my point. Public policy is not decided by public opinion or even what is the right thing to do. Public policy is decided by interest groups acquiring and applying power. That fact has been the political norm for all of human history. You may wish people and politics were different. You may wish for some Utopian view of democracy. But your wishes will never come true. If you have an issue or cause you think ought to be reflected in public policy then you have to actively fight for it. There is no other course open to you. If you fail to take active measures to fight so your cause prevails, what you think or how outraged you are is merely inconsequential background noise.

And don't tell me that people aren't capable of fighting for the world they want. If you're not actively engaged in campaigns to have the issues of importance to you reflected in public policy, it's because you choose not to. And if you choose not to, why should anyone who is engaged care one whit about your concerns or opinions--you're a bystander who doesn't matter.

[Stephen Best]

FYI--The following arrived in my "In" box this morning:

Nanos National Tracking: Liberals 35%, Conservatives 33% - Canadians still don't embrace Dion (or Harper, or Layton, or May, or Duceppe--comment by Stephen Best)

Nik on the Numbers

The latest Nanos poll shows that the Liberals and Conservatives are gripped in a deadlock (LP 35%, CP 33%, NDP 17%, BQ 8%, GP 7%).

Of note, in the province of Quebec, support for the Bloc has decreased significantly by nine points in the last quarter, with the NDP picking up most of that support.

On the best Prime Minister front, Stephen Harper still enjoys a significant advantage over Stephane Dion.

A potential election poses risks for both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Prime Minister Harper seems ready to risk his mandate while his party is tied with the Liberals. Liberal leader Stephane Dion has not been embraced by Canadians.

Visit Nik on the Numbers and join our national political conversation and post your comments on this poll.

The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our new polling portal website at: http://www.nanosresearch.com. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates at the Nanos polling portal.

Methodology

Polling between August 20th and August 27th, 2008. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,000 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed in May 2008.

Committed Voters - Canada (N=846, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)

Liberal Party 35% (+1)

Conservative Party 33% (NC)

NDP 17% (+2)

BQ 8% (-3)

Green Party 7% (-1)

(*Note: Undecided 16%)

Committed Voters - Quebec (N=214, MoE ± 6.8%, 19 times out of 20)

BQ 31% (-9)

Conservative Party 25% (+2)

Liberal Party 24% (+2)

NDP 13% (+8)

Green Party 7% (-2)

(*Note: Undecided 14%)

Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Read and Rotate]

Canada (N=1,000, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)

Stephen Harper 36% (+2)

Jack Layton 17% (+1)

Stephane Dion 15% (NC)

Gilles Duceppe 5% (-2)

Elizabeth May 4% (-3)

None/ Unsure 23% (NC)

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll."

Cheers,

Nik Nanos, CMRP

President & CEO

________________________________________

email: [email protected]

web: http://www.nanosresearch.com

[M.Dancer]

Fundamental to representative democracy is interest groups competing--and using what ever leverage they cab create-- to elect the government that reflects their views.

So you would have no problem with a Conrad Black spending all his money on third party ads to get someone elected.

I won't say it is a conflict of interest, but it is self serving for a paid propagandists to argue against a law that prevents special interest groups from exerting more influence than they have support. In the US lobby groups can make or break campaigns with their money spect on ads, ads that do not have to conform to any election law.....that is harmful to democracy.

The Canadian style prevents lobbyists and propagandists from unaccountable spending and backing one candidate over another and creates a level playing field so even extreme fringe parties like the Greens can compete. A system like the US has could have Monsanto spending millions of dollars on direct mail and ads to "inform" voters about the Greens irresponsible and dangerous policies....

So if you want an American system where someone like you can make money hand over fist shilling for some worthy cause, move there.