(Canadian) Election is most important ever: PM - Globe and Mail

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040506.wxmartin0506/BNStory/Front/

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Paul Martin assailed Conservative Leader Stephen Harper during Wednesday's private caucus session and told his MPs they are about to embark upon the ''most important'' election in the country's history, one offering Canadians a choice between U.S.-style tax cuts and a caring society.
Caucus insiders described the Prime Minister as "passionate and pumped up" as he criticized the kind of Canada Mr. Harper wants to lead as one that will destroy the country's social safety net.

"At no time have . . . the choices been so clear," Mr. Martin said, according to one caucus source.

- No! Really! It's very important! Please vote for me! Please! I'll be your best friend!

Monday, there was the above-the-fold story of Liberal campaign ads. Quite an "exclusive" there, national desk.

"Most important"? Bullshite scaremongering of a toothless opponent. I remember the free trade election of 1988. I voted in it. This sir, is no 1988.

Martin better watch, pushing this line. It's so clearly untrue, it's not funny. Or rather, it is funny. Desperation is so often funny.

OBVIOUSLY, it wasn't.

...as you are trying to portray him to be. Even with the sponsorship scandal his numbers are pretty decent and are now on the rebound. His worst numbers are here in Quebec where political sentiment has been known to turn on a dime.

Good luck.

Even were Paul Martin heading for a comfortable majority, he would still come across as desperate. It's his absolute nature. The man's entire personality seems to be based on a desperate need for the goodwill of others. In a leader, it just comes across as pathetic. The man is a poor choice to lead the Liberal party, and they will suffer for it. He is, assuredly, no Pierre Trudeau. He's no Jean Chretien. He's barely John Turner.

Layton comes across as rather juvenile and whiny while Harper is a fundie trying to disguise himself as a moderate. Paul Martin's popularity in Quebec is unparalleled for a leader of the Federal Liberals.

Oh and just an FYI, Chretien and Trudeau are the two most detested Canadian PM's in Quebec in recent history, even Mulroney and Johnson gather more respect in these parts, didn't know that did you now?

I'm sorry you're in denial about it, but it's clear that Paul Martin is a weak, fumbling leader. Jack Layton will triumph over him in the debates and on campaign, hell, even Duceppe and Harper will do better than Martin in the debates. I assume you know that Quebec has seriously soured on Martin of late?

...not on Martin. A subtle distinction that seems to have been glazed over by the majority of the press outside Quebec. Martin is still very popular here and that's one reason why i'm not jumping on the "Liberals are imploding" bandwagon, a lot can happen in the next two months.

Even if Quebec soured on the Liberals what makes you believe that disgruntled voters will opt for the NDP instead? A debate performance that nobody might bother to listen to as Harper and Layton massacre the French language?

He is notorious for pulling off infantile PR stunts and feeding at the public trough and his wife (who is announcing her candidacy today) is a know racist with an authoritarian streak. When the pair of them were pulling in a combined six-figure income as city councillors here they lived in a government-subsidized apartment while many working poor were on a ten-year waiting list.

And Olivia's a racist? Please prove evidence of your idiotic assertion.

One of the impressive innovative aspects of co-op housing is that it is DESIGNED to be a mixed-income community. Ghettoizing low-income people has never worked; co-ops do. Jack Layton paid full market rent when he lived in the co-op, and received no government subsidy. His membership in the co-op did not deny housing to a single low-income person.
Mixed income co-ops use the higher rents paid by the richer folks to subsidize units for low-income residents. If people like Jack and Olivia didn't live there, then fewer low-income people could live there as well.

It was a brand new downtown building and the rent was less than half the rate paid for comparable units on the open market. They were able to claim it wasn't a subsidy because of creative accounting by building management- the province paid the interest on the mortgage so the building managers didn't include it in their calculation of "market rent". That's why they were able to pretend that the rental revenues covered their costs. Interestingly enough, the "affordable" housing built in that era cost an average of $180,000 per unit to build- it would've been cheaper to buy condos for the residents.

We've debunked it dozens and dozens of times, yet it keeps coming up again. Quite the little exercise in futility.

Chow "a known racist"? Pardon my franglais, but what the fucque are you talking about?

"A combined six-figure income" - it doesn't take a freaking King Midas and his missus to earn a combined six-figure income. And Layton and Chow were paying full market value. Please excuse them for not living in a freakin' gated community. Nice to see this hoary and hollow right-wing talking point repeated here. :eyes:

Here's her bio from the Toronto Training Board.

Olivia Chow has represented downtown Toronto residents as a municipal Councillor since 1991. She is the City of Toronto’s first Children and Youth Advocate, and a member of the Community Services Committee, the Children and Youth Action Committee and the Woman Abuse Prevention Council. Since 1995, Olivia has also taught in George Brown College’s Assaulted Women and Children Counselling and Advocacy Program. As a Public School Trustee from 1985 to 1991, she strived to make the Toronto Board of Education accessible and accountable to both parents and students and developed anti-racist and anti-homophobic curriculum in Toronto schools. She has taught English as a Second Language and the Heritage Languages Program and acted as a Community Development Worker with social service agencies. She has been a member of the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Urban Alliance for Race Relations, and St. Stephen’s Youth Employment Services.

Yep, a regular Ernst Zundel there.
:crazy:

She made headlines in the Star, Sun and Globe in 1994 when she told a reporter's son, who was applying for a summer job, that she doesn't interview white male candidates. When asked for confirmation by Sun reporter Sharon Lem, she stated that white guys don't deserve the opportunity and that she was proud of the fact that she excludes them from consideration.

It is not subsidized by the government IN ANY WAY. At one time, the Ontario Provincial government would finance (ie loan) the money for construction of new Co-ops, but that was cancelled in short order by Mike "Common Sense" Harris.
As for people with six figures living in Co-ops, it was always designed to be that way. There is no means test, there is no requirement for government subsidized members.
And as for racist, WTF? The man married a chinese woman, lives with his chinese-speaking mother-in-law and can speak some chinese himself.
I think you need to do some basic reaearch into the facts before you start repeating utterly false and already debunked smears.

I was commenting on Olivia Chow, who went on record to all three dailies in the summer of 1994 that she was proud of the fact that she never interviews white male applicants for city jobs.

As for the claim that they're not subsidized, the interest-free mortgages are still covered for the buildings that went up before 1995. That mortgage interest is three quarters of the cost of operating a building.

I stand corrected, you were referring to Olivia Chow. But "racist"??? That's even more unbelievable in Olivia's case.
A supporter of Anti Racist Action and a minority herself, why in G*d's name would she discriminate against "white males" and then go marry one?
And that reference to 1994. Give me an article link and I'll believe it. I've googled and searched Torstar for every reference to Olivia Chow and I can see no link to racism, not even on the right wingnut sites. In fact, looking at her quotes made me even more impressed with her. IF indeed she said anything like that, it would be totally out of character for her.
So the Gov isn't making interest. Big deal. Does that make it subsidized? BTW, those mortgages were handled by CMHC, a non-profit crown corporation.
And so what if Co-ops were subsidized? Is affordable housing such an absolute waste of taxpayer money?
You don't sound like much of a progressive or liberal and around here, you could quickly wear out your welcome.

is that those who can, pay the market value, subsidizing those who cannot. By living in a co-op, Jack and Olivia were being true to their Socialist principals.

I served on a Board of Directors for a 120-unit Co-op. The rents or "housing charges" were the same for everybody.
Maybe Jack and Olivia were in an experimental co-op.

Martin's number are quite good really considering the sponsorship mess. I also agree that this is a very important election, on the basis of national unity. Imagine a situation where the Cons form government without a seat in Quebec. How fast can you all say referendum! Canadians who fail to recognize this are betraying their lack of understanding about the province.

to carry 155 of the remaining 233 seats. There's no way in hell that's happening.

Imagine a situation where the Cons form government without a seat in Quebec. How fast can you all say referendum!

One of the reasons the NDP has had lackluster results in making inroads with Quebec voters is because they are viewed as a pro-Ottawa party. The last thing people want in Quebec is greater centralization of government at the Federal level.

Quebec needs to feel like they have some control over what is going on in Ottawa. Proof? Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin all came/come from Quebec. Coincidence? Don't think so.

The NDP will not form a federal government until it can win Quebec. It certainly won't this time. But Layton, a native Montrealer, should fair exceptionally well in the French debate, and if he does pleasant surprises are possible in a handful of ridings.

And while some may view the party as pro-centralist, this is not true today. The Liberals are more centralist than the NDP.

For instance, from a press release of March 1:

The New Democratic Party (NDP) is ready to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. This was the message of discussions on the party's electoral platfurm during the Federal Council of the NDP held in Toronto on the weekend.

"We need a flexible and cooperative federal system," explained NDP leader Jack Layton. "We don't want the federal government to impose programs on Quebec. Instead, we want to see existing programs supported and improved. Quebec has often been an example to the other provinces."

Pierre Ducasse, NDP candidate in the riding of Manicouagan and vice-president of the party, also participated in the Federal Council. "The NDP now clearly recognizes Quebec as a nation within the Canadian federation, and that Quebec needs more political room to manoeuvre than the other provinces," Mr. Ducasse said. "Thanks to Jack Layton, the perception of the NDP as a centralizing party is changing." Pierre Ducasse's impact within the party has greatly contributed to modernizing the NDP's policies with regards to Quebec's jurisdictions.
http://www.web.net/qcndp/en/

He also expends little effort in Quebec to get his message across. Its not too hard to get an interview on the 6 o'clock news and get the word around. I track the local news and never once have I seen Layton extolling the virtues of his party, instead he chooses to dish puerile soundbites after question time - that's just not going to cut it.

At least two recent glowing cover stories I've seen. I know it's small circulation, but it's influential. And he's been spending more time in Quebec than any province but Ontario.

Granted their politics might be in line with Laytons on social and economic issues but they diverge on the issue of Quebec nationalism.

Jack Layton stands about as much chance of getting any support in Quebec as he has in Alberta.

That's encouraging.

Sweet! :evilgrin:

Speaking of Quebec wastelands, how well do you expect your boy to fare?

Le Parti Rhinoceros- probably the most rational on the Canadian political scene. But the province will probably be split evenly between the Bloc-heads and the Lie-berals.

Absolutely necessary, Oui!
You,know with everything that we've been through from the Clarity Act to the stupid billboards, and ad campaign, it's time for truth and reconciliation. Despite some of the negative Martin opinions posted by les Canadiennes Anglais (no offense to anyone, just reality) I see Martin as our chance to reach that truth and reconciliation. It's clear to me that Martin was kept out of Chretien's circle, and Quebec strategy, because he opposed them. This was a fundamental and insurmountable difference between these two men. Martin has already shown that he's reaching out to former Separatists, to build an inclusive government at the highest level, that will give Quebec a strong voice in Ottawa. That's a good thing IMO.
So, I stand by my opinion that this is a very important election.

Well, glaat least I know you weren't talking about me, then.
:evilgrin:

And as I said no offense to anyone, but unless you have lived in Quebec, it's a hard concept for many to understand. I would never pretend to understand the concerns of people from BC or Western Canadians. I am one of those funny Canadians, born in Ontario, with parents from Quebec, raised in Quebec until a teenager, and now as an adult, living in Ontario.
If we can't address these issues honestly with maturity, what's the point of it all, eh!

Someone with all that knowledge of Quebec might actually be expected to know that "canadiennes" is a feminine plural noun, and "anglais" is a masculine plural or singular adjective. "Canadien(s) anglais" and "canadienne(s) anglaise(s)", for future reference.

Quebec politics can be unspeakably infantile at times. The amount of patronage doled out continues to be a decisive factor. Mulroney was pretty good at that. He was also a stupendous right-wing asshole, but who cares, eh?

Much as I despise Liberals in general, I'm willing to buy that Chrétien's distaste for Martin owed a tiny bit to Chrétien's slightly more genuine "liberal" credentials: "liberal" in the Trudeauesque, Charter-of-Rights-and-Freedoms sense that our USAmerican neighbours have some affinity for. Martin is a pure opportunist in the classic Liberal mould.

There have certainly been legitimate grievances in Quebec; but today's Quebec politicians, regardless of party name, are just like a lot of other provincial politicians: power and money hungry. When a power-hungry élite has an aggrieved population to manipulate, well, we know what sorts of things happen. In the name of the self-determination of the population, we get the self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment of the élite.

Here's what someone had to say about it in the Montreal press recently, in response to a PQ activist's complaints about the NDP (I can't link to it, and I have to translate it for you; sorry):

There is a paradox here that the Bloc will of course not appreciate, but in the present Canadian and North American context, it seems that the only road to social democracy lies in a strong Canadian federation, which is capable of resisting the American and global -- and internal -- pressure brought to bear against any initiative that is the least bit 'social democratic'.

... Mr. Roy complains that social democrats in English Canada are not 'sensitive' to the Quebec sovereignty project. To social democrats, defeating the right wing is the primary objective, as it is in the entire movement for social democracy outside Quebec and around the world. But the opposite is true here in Quebec: consideration is given to all kinds of alliances with the 'blue' parties, at the other end of the political spectrum, if they will advance the constitutional agenda. On the one hand, we have an alliance with the federal Conservative Party, a party that even many former Progressive Conservatives regard as too right-wing. On the other hand, we have the PQ preparing to undertake a stealth campaign to get Mario Dumont, perhaps the most reactionary politician in Canada after Alberta's Ralph Klein, to join the 'yes' camp in the next referendum. What message is this sending to social democrats in English Canada? It's this: we are prepared to throw the whole country into the grips of a right-wing 'common sense revolution' in order to get sovereignty. As far as we're concerned, social democracy is just one more thing on the auction block. What a fine and sincere and sensitive message that is.

Some people in Quebec may be willing to let themselves be diddled by "sovereignist" politicians like these, but us actual social democrats really don't have to swallow it. And we don't have to pander to it by watering down the policies that will benefit both Canada as a whole and Quebec itself.

We all know that ya can't make people vote for you. Turning into the thing you are opposed to -- Liberals lite (or, for our USAmerican neighbours, Republicans lite) -- is not the solution.

.

Although I would remove the word "Despise"

Hope that Quebec does as normal and provides the balance required.

It would also be premature to declare that one party will win over the other. Let's hope that Martin wins with a clear mandate so he can govern without having to pander to either Harper or Layton.

.
.
.

My first choice will be the NDP.

I tend to support the party that shares my values, or at least gets close to them.

Many times the leader may not be a reflection of the whole party.

Harper is Waaaaaaaaaaay down on my list, as are the Conservatives.

Harris(Conservative) literally raped Ontario, setting back our social support systems by over 10 years, and driving the poor into even deeper poverty.

In a race between the two, personally I prefer Martin over Harper, not by a wide margin, but definitely prefer the Liberals over the Conservatives by a very wide margin.

I thought Trudeau was great for Canada, and although I was not a big Chretien fan, his resolute stand to keep Canada out of the Iraq war has put him favorably in my memory forever. That was Chretien's most important decision before him, and he did it right.

That's my opinions anyhoo!

We would have stayed out even if they wanted us to send troops because our military just doesn't have the resources to take on another mission- we're barely keeping the troops in Afghanistan afloat. The main reason for his rather vocal opposition to US involvement, though, is rather personal- he's got a bundle invested in TotalFinaELF, which profited immensely by helping Saddam defraud the UN oil-for-food program.

Did we stay out of Iraq because we didn’t have the resources to go or because Chrétien had a personal stake?
Maybe he degraded the military on purpose to avoid ever facing the conflict of interest charges.
Seriously though, I may be naive, but I’ve always been puzzled by our decision to stay out of Iraq.
I hardly think that Canada is the only functioning democracy in the world.
And I don't buy the limited resources claims.
Honduras has sent troops. A token deployment would have sufficed. We could have spun Afghanistan as our priority without dismissing Iraq altogether.

This election is as important as every other. No more no less.
Perhaps Martin’s desperation stems from his fear of retribution from the Canadian electorate for the overthrowing of a popular government.
After all, his coup hasn't been officially sanctioned by the electorate yet.

The NDP has as good a chance in Klein’s Alberta as they did in Ontario after a decade of Mike Harris’s Common Sense. Living in Toronto for the last 10 years I have witnessed Jack Layton in action on the local level. It’s a shame he has toned down his rhetoric to appeal to more moderate left leaning liberals. I understand the rationale but I had hoped to see his fiery style on the nation stage.

Honduras was able to send troops to Iraq because they don't have their soldiers & sailors deployed all over the place. IIRC we have ground troops in Iraq, the Balkans, Africa and Syria, and our Navy has maintained a presence in the Gulf off and on since 1990 and continuously since 2001. All this during a time of budget cuts, so something's gotta give.

I think if we simply stayed out of the war, just as we stayed out of many other US conflicts, most of us (and the US) would not have had a problem with it. What bothers many is that not only were our pols quite vocally opposed, most of them were downright rude about it. Might be good politics but it's rotten foreign policy. Whether or not JC's personal finances affected the decision is something we'll never know for sure, but it would not surprise me given that he and his pals have been lining their pockets with tax money for nearly a decade (Gran-Mère Inn, AdScam). I think part of the reason they went out of their way to insult the US government (and Americans in general) is that they knew our military was inadequate and needed a distraction.

"we have ground troops in Iraq, the Balkans, Africa and Syria, and our Navy has maintained a presence in the Gulf off and on since 1990 and continuously since 2001"

Sounds adequate to me considering we haven't been invaded in almost 200 years and haven't been victims of terrorist attacks in as many years.
I don't think we would create such animosity just to cause a distraction from our military shortcomings. Who exactly are they distracting from it anyway? All those countries just waiting for us to let our guards down or a Canadian electorate that values social services over defense spending.

Welcome. And watch out for goats among the sheep. Not everybody who looks Canadian is. ;)

(Our new friend here seems to be. He mentioned a "hydro pole" in another thread, and we're the only ones who know what that is.)

A funny thing happens when you click on "Rhinoceros Party" here:
http://www.nodice.ca/election2004/parties.html

-- http://www.rhinoparty.ca/

Oops. It's gone.

Now, I didn't have a lot against the Rhinos, although there were a couple of instances in the distant past where an NDPer might have felt toward them the way some US Democrats feel toward Nader. But my co-vivant was a Rhino at one time in Toronto, and has just never said such nasty things about Jack and Olivia. In fact, he went to Lynn MacDonald's victory party one year ... although the annoyed NDPer at the door accused him and his pals of just being there for the free booze. I think that was the first election I was an NDP candidate myself. And of course he'll be voting (indirectly, of course) for Jack this year. He wouldn't be getting dinner if he weren't.

Anyhow, back to our sheep: welcome!

.

The fact remains that the Liberal party is so deeply mired in scandal that they are desperate to distract us, and every politician in Canada knows that you never lose votes by bashing the yanks. They're also facing growing criticism over their neglect of our military, so actually admitting that we are incapable of making any deployments would be yet more ammo for the Conservatives.

FYI terrorist attacks here have taken place much more recently than 200 years ago- in the 1980s there was the Air India massacre, the Litton bombing, some video store bombings in BC and the attacks on Turkish diplomats. Many terorist groups use Canada as a staging ground for their schemes (such as the plan to blow up LAX in '99) and a source of funding (the Tamil Tigers even managed to get a cabinet minister to speak at one of their fundraisers). Some terrorist groups use fake charities to raise money while others, such as the Tamil Tigers, also finance their activities through extortion and other criminal means. Even though some of these groups never target Canadians, they contribute to our crime rate and make it difficult to travel abroad. Also, if you really think the Wahabbi extremists will leave us alone you're dreaming- they've been saying all along that they won't be satisfied until all of us infidels are dead.

The neglect of our military is neither benign nor a result of any conscious choice to spend our money on social programs instead- it was brought about by a succession of politicians, starting with Trudeau, who wanted to buy our votes but didn't want to face the consequences of the resulting tax hikes. During the cold war that was easy because they knew the yanks would never tolerate a Soviet occupation so close to home. The trade-off of that choice, though, is that we are now incapable of mounting a foreign policy that is either credible or independent- as long as we rely entirely on Uncle Sam for our defence our only choices are to follow or stay out of the way.

The domestic terrorism we have faced in recent yrs would fall into Law enforcement not national defense.
As far as I’m concerned Foreign policy at the barrel of a gun is what has landed the U.S. in this Iraq pickle.
I think Canada has established a credible and independent foreign policy in Iraq despite the charges you make.
What would lead you to believe our defense needs have increased since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
It sounds like you think domestic law enforcement and nation defense/military are one in the same. Whether on purpose, or not, you try to question our military's ability to deal with our domestic law enforcement needs. You further mix up the funding priorities for both. You mention the negligent neglect of our military as evidence that we aren't capable of facing the threats present, and feel we have undermined our influence globally. Please site examples of how.

Btw I will only start to fear wahabbi extremists if we discover new major oil/gas reserves in Canada.

a succession of politicians, starting with Trudeau, who wanted to buy our votes but didn't want to face the consequences of the resulting tax hikes.

If you're old enough to claim to be a member of the extinct Rhinoceros Party, you may be old enough to remember ... oh ... wage and price controls? I wonder who might have been responsible for them. As I recall, it was Pierre Trudeau.

Buying votes -- whether by playing to Quebec's grievances/aspirations or more directly -- was one thing that Trudeau wasn't actually known for. Any disregard for the military on his part simply was not driven by electoral politics.

The rather free spending of the early Trudeau years, the late 60s/early 70s, was largely a function of the prosperity of the times, not his own political or economic philosophy; Trudeau wasn't much known for having an economic philosophy. Uncle Bill Davis, the Tory Premier of Ontario who would look positively scarlet on today's political spectrum, followed similar policies: liberal financial assistance for post-secondary students and govt-sponsored student/youth employment projects were features of both levels of govt, for instance.


The trade-off of that choice, though, is that we are now incapable of mounting a foreign policy that is either credible or independent- as long as we rely entirely on Uncle Sam for our defence our only choices are to follow or stay out of the way.

There actually is a little more to foreign policy than military strategy. Even "liberals" acknowledge this.

You seem a knowledgeable chap. Perhaps you are aware of Canada's activities in many forums on the international scene, and in bilateral relationships, in areas like democratic development, particularly in relation to institution-building and the rule of law. Even Paul Martin seems to be committed to maintaining this role -- whether as a result of even a minimal genuine philosophical commitment (which I do grudgingly concede in the case of Jean Chrétien) or as a result of expediency, it's hard to say. The Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States -- the work done there may go on in relative obscurity in terms of public/media notice, but it does go on and it does have effect, and it is recognized.

Our foreign policy is both credible and independent; in fact, those are hallmarks of our foreign policy. It is indeed unfortunate that more details of it are not as well known to the general public in Canada as they are in other places. But even if most Canadians are inadequately informed about these things, there is little doubt about our overall support for the philosophy behind them. Our vision of ourselves as peace-keepers may be a little self-serving at times, but it does reflect a very real sense of national identity and values and purpose.


Many terorist groups use Canada as a staging ground for their schemes (such as the plan to blow up LAX in '99) and a source of funding (the Tamil Tigers even managed to get a cabinet minister to speak at one of their fundraisers).

In the present day, it would actually be rather odd if Canada were exempt from these phenomena. There is a world out there, and we are part of it. Our chosen orientation is engagement with the world, not isolation from it (let alone attempts to dominate it), and there will be consequences from that choice. It is difficult to see how they could be worse than the consequences of the alternative, paranoid isolationism / messianism, the effects of which are rather evident on the global stage these days.

.

I'd actually like an answer to my questions.

.

dupe

I had an hour-long meeting with my MP on the subject. I showed how Afghanistan was an oil war then showed how Iraq was a continuation of the same policy.

A token deployment would have lost us the "high ground" advantage we now have. When the dust settles, a UN force will need to go on, probably led by Canada.

Martin didn't overthrow a government. What are you talking about?

While I’d like to think that it was truly to take the High ground. I think that your second point about Canada leading a peace keeping role is interesting.
Do you think that was the plan from the outset and if so did it originate in Ottawa or was it a fall back plan from Washington?

I may be too young to remember another time a popular Prime Minister was forced to resign as leader of his party because of an organized grass roots revolt based on a personality conflict.
I do understand parliamentary democracy but I still think the way it went down stinks. The polls at the time indicated that Chrétien would have cruised to victory had he run for re-election. He did not want to resign; therefore in my opinion Martin engineered the overthrow of the government

It is just my opinion and not supported by any dictionary definition I know of I agree.

let's not split the left

Do you think that a split left could leave the door open for a conservative majority ?
I do agree that there may be cause for concern, however
as stated in a previous post i think the concern is more that Martin might turn to the Conservatives if forced to form a coalition government.
I still think that a left coalition between the NDP and the liberals would be the best result for the country. If it means splitting the left to achieve it it might be worth it.

That really bothers me.

but he might get blackmailed by the NDP into some financial moves the country simply can't afford.

My point is that I don't want to lose a Liberal seat to a Conservative because an unsuccessful NDPer drew votes away.

NDPers need to remember which side their bread is buttered on.

And if I lived in a seat in which the NDP didn't have a snowball's chance, I'd probably vote Conservative. I've done it before, as we know. Cripes, I even voted Liberal, provincially, to oust Harris's progeny in Ontario.

"My point is that I don't want to lose a Liberal seat to a Conservative because an unsuccessful NDPer drew votes away."

But that is of course exactly what I *do* want to see.

The Conservatives haven't got an iceberg's chance of winning even a minority. So the more of them there are, the fewer Liberals there are, and the more evenly divided the House is, and the better life will be ... and what will be best is a minority government.

My bread is buttered on whichever side results in the most NDP influence in the House, i.e. the most voice in the House for the values I hold. And that is *not* a Liberal majority government.

I'm in luck. I'm in a riding in which I don't have to hold my nose and vote strategically this time around. No Conservative (and as far as I know, there isn't even a candidate yet ... and if there is, what good fun that I haven't heard the name) needs to even bother running here. So you're safe from my anti-Liberal machinations this time around.

.

Trudeau had a minority (just 2 seats more than the Conservatives) propped up by the NDP and for the next two years they were throwing money all over the place- the result was double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment followed by wage controls and a massive devaluation of our currency (the Canadian dollar was worth ~$1.10 US in 1971).

or perhaps the floating of the u.s dollar?

The Liberal Party is centrist and the NDP is leftist. You belong to a centrist party. There is no shame in it. You should be proud to be a centrist.

Even the "right-wing" Conservatives never challenge our social programs. They quibble over the administrative details but not the principle.

Even the "right-wing" Conservatives never challenge our social programs. They quibble over the administrative details but not the principle.

... you would enlighten us as to your opinion of what they should be doing.

Seems only fair. You've given us your negative opinion of every available option; let's have the benefit of your wisdom as to what we should all be doing.

.

If it weren't for the Liberals and Red Tories implementing progressive legislation, regardless of whether or not they came up with the idea first -- it would only be theories, rather than initiatives that can have a positive effect on the entire society. Thanks to open-minded centrists, our country has changed for the better in many ways since the 1960s.

Trudeau even said that some of the most beneficial times have been when the Grits worked with other parties to get things done.

Wolf!
Only works so many times.
Believe that it has worn off.

With the new funding rules for political parties it will probably mean more votes going to the Green and CAP.
Even to the NDP in areas that are a shoo in for other parties. Add to that the fact that Martin did the unthinkable and wiped out the left wing of the party.

Doesn't look like there will be a majority parliament.

It may finally be a parliament where something will get done on medicare and other important Canadian items.

The government doles out our money according to the vote split from the previous election, which means the Liberals will get as much cash as all the other parties combined.

(more so than the current system, anyway)

As a Rhino, this doesn't please you? I know the Greens are pushing this in my riding, because this way it'll substantially increase their funding for next election.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Last time only about 40% of the electorate voted Liberal, which is not a majority in terms of the popular vote. But because of where those votes were located geographically, they won a majority of the seats in Parliament.

p.s. and if you aren't fond of Jack Layton -- since unions as well as companies are restricted in terms of their donations, that dries up a source of funding for him.

To agree with you on this. The ability of smaller parties to collect funds is severally limited compared to the party in power and the other larger parties.
If one looks at it as a percentage increase in funds, it could be quite large. Couple this with the max contribution that has been imposed by any one entity and I think that the effect will be quite large. I think that the effect will be a step to proportional rep.

A limiting part, sort of a huge dead band, is that there has to be 50 people running under the party name to qualify for the funding. Thus one wouldn't expect to see many new parties coming onto the scene.