More than politics, this is a national crisis

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: More than politics, t

Reverend Blair said:
It's Toronto that gets screwed when you look at those numbers though, Blue. I don't remember the numbers perfectly, but Alberta has something like 28% of the seats and 27.5% of the population...or maybe that's the west combined.

The real democratic deficit is that the Liberals and Conservatives consistently get a higher percentage of seats than they do of the popular vote. That's the first past the post system. It needs to change. Tell your buddy Stevie to smarten up and do something about it.

I think you may be surprised at what I will say when done. I did not have much time over the weekend, you know, doing that traditional conservative family thing on the whole mothers day weekend :wink:
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Bluealberta, the Conservatives would sell off almost all social policy items. Sell to the highest bidder. The conservatives keep saying we have to move forward and reform the agenda, yet all they propose is ideas that created the problems of the l930's.
The conservative agenda would do nothing for the poor and the old, the sick and those who need education and training. They would however greatly assist the big time share holders, and those who feed at the corperate trough. In case you are wondering, my political views range from the political left to the political right depending on the issue. That is reasonible right, not the Fraser Institute, silly right. In the coming Federal election, I will be placing my vote with the NDP. And in the current Provincial election the New Democrats will get my vote, not because I love them but because I hate what the Campbell government has done. Strip away the blinder, and the hood wink tactics and the Provincial Liberals are a disaster for BC
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: More than politics, this is a national crisis

damngrumpy said:
Bluealberta, the Conservatives would sell off almost all social policy items. Sell to the highest bidder. The conservatives keep saying we have to move forward and reform the agenda, yet all they propose is ideas that created the problems of the l930's.
The conservative agenda would do nothing for the poor and the old, the sick and those who need education and training. They would however greatly assist the big time share holders, and those who feed at the corperate trough. In case you are wondering, my political views range from the political left to the political right depending on the issue. That is reasonible right, not the Fraser Institute, silly right. In the coming Federal election, I will be placing my vote with the NDP. And in the current Provincial election the New Democrats will get my vote, not because I love them but because I hate what the Campbell government has done. Strip away the blinder, and the hood wink tactics and the Provincial Liberals are a disaster for BC

That may be your view of the conservatives, but I have seen nothing to indicate they are planning what you are saying. What I do see is getting some accountability into the social programs so that first of all money goes to those who need it the most, and secondly to make sure it is spent with some degree of responsibility.

I am not aware of the details of your provinces politics, so cannot comment on those with any degree of knowledge. As far as the Federal election goes, at what point to we say to the Liberals that they deserve to spend some time in the wilderness just as the conservatives did after 1993? Remember, the Liberals campaigned on cleaning up corruption (failure), cancelling the GST (did not, even though everyone should have known they were not going to) and cancelling NAFTA (again, thank God the didn't). Now they are the ones who claim only they can clean up the corruption? They improved on it! I hear a rumor the Mafia is sending their boys up to BANANADA to be with the Liberanos to learn how to run organized crime :wink: :roll:

In my opinion, a vote for the NDP is little more than tacit approval of the Liberals, given that the NDP and the Liberals are on the same side of the political fence and have made strange bedfellows over the years. Why not give the conservatives a chance, and if you don't like them in four years (assuming a majority), then they can always be turfed at that point. A Liberal election simply means that we will continue to get more and more lies, thieving, and corruption.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Reverend Blair said:
Why not give the conservatives a chance, and if you don't like them in four years (assuming a majority), then they can always be turfed at that point.

Their history, their policies, and their leadership.

So the ROC will continue to elect liberals who have been proven to be liars (GST, NAFTA, Clean Up Corruption, etc. etc. etc.), money launders (Gomery) Thieves (HRDC, EI Fund, Gun registry, Gomery, Foundation accounts, etc. etc. etc.)? At what point do you folks quit hitting your head with a hammer only because it feels good when you stop? Over 30 years of liberal governtment in the last 40 years, and the conservative history is a sore point? Their policies of responsible social programs, lower taxation, giving Atlantic Canada the same resource royalty deal as Alberta, maintaining the status quo on abortion, protecting the Canada Health Act, an immigration policy that actually wants to know where the people who come into this country are (600,000's whereabouts are currently unknown) and many others: This is bad how? And please don't respond by saying that they will change when they get into power. You don't know that, but the Liberals have proven over and over and over that they do exactly that. So I guess the Liberal history of broken promises, policies that involve criminal activity and raising taxes to a horrendous level, and their leadership like Jean "da Boss" Chretien and Paul "Mr. Dithers" Martin, and Pierre "The Finger" Trudeau is something that the ROC should just ignore. Wow, what a leap of illogic.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More than politics, t

The Conservatives history is no better than the Liberals, Blue. That the managed to do so much harm with so little time in office speaks only to their ambition. That ambition is negative though, so I will not support it.

You have this weird idea that I somehow support the Liberals though. That is wrong at its very heart. That keep pushing it forward shows either a basic misunderstanding of the Canadian political system, or somebody so caught up in rhetoric that he cannot bear to tell the truth.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: More than politics, t

Reverend Blair said:
The Conservatives history is no better than the Liberals, Blue. That the managed to do so much harm with so little time in office speaks only to their ambition. That ambition is negative though, so I will not support it.

You have this weird idea that I somehow support the Liberals though. That is wrong at its very heart. That keep pushing it forward shows either a basic misunderstanding of the Canadian political system, or somebody so caught up in rhetoric that he cannot bear to tell the truth.

I know you don't support the Liberals, but I suggest that you would not be unhappy with a Liberal re-election, given that your party will not be elected either with a minority or a majority. However, my comments are not directed at you, per se, but the liberal voters who may be having some problem voting for this group again. Your comments are ones I use to make points, because let's face it, you are here a lot, as am I. 8)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I know you don't support the Liberals, but I suggest that you would not be unhappy with a Liberal re-election,

As long as it's a minority, I can live with it. I can live with a Conservative minority too, since you would have less power than you do now. Either way would give us a chance to institute PR, which would get rid of the real democratic deficit, and push through some legislation banning corporate donations, which would serve to minimize things like the sponsorship scandal happening again.

However, my comments are not directed at you, per se, but the liberal voters who may be having some problem voting for this group again.

They can all vote NDP. We are the only federal party that hasn't been implicated in the Sponsorship Scandal at all.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
speaking of strange bedfellows, the Conservatives have teamed up with the seperatists, the very people who would preside over the death of this country as we know it. Can you imagine an eleciton where the issue becomes the Tories alliance with the seperatists?
That is what the election will be about, Atlantic Canada will send the Conservatives into the wilderness, Quebec will on vote for the Conservatives, they'll vote Bloc.
Ontario, well they like the budget and their votes will go to the Liberals and NDP, much like the east coast folks.
The Prairie will see more liberals and New Democrats, as the will be upset the Tories formed an alliance with the Bloc. Alberta will not be pleased either, that those seperatists agre about to have a voice, and BC will likely reject a party that supports seperatists.
In a minority Conservative Government what would they give their allies and new friends, the Bloc Seperatists?
Would the Bloc be given any Cabinet posts in such a government? Very strange indeed. When do we throw the Liberals out? Certainly not at a time when the Conservatives are behaiving so strangly. A party that lusts for power like the present version of the Conservatives, rarely reaches the mantle of power.
I am afraid Canadians can see the present game for what it is worth, and the Tories should book a convention hall for another new start with a new leader.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I found this over at Babble. I won't put up the entire post because it's long and involved, but these are the salient bits:
The polls have not moved much in the last year so the likely seats to change hands are the close ones. If you won by less than 5% and the vote is close to last time then that seat is vulnerable and if you lost by less than 5% then there is an opportunity. Let's look at who has the most vulnerable seats and who has the opportunities.

First let's look at the Vulnerable seats (those won by less than 5%:
Liberal 31
Conservative 26
NDP 6
BQ 2
Only 14 Lib vulnerable seats have Cons as the second party, 7 have the BQ and 10 NDP.
6 of the Con Vulnerable seats are to the NDP.

Next Look at the Opportunities (those lost by less than 5% -- they don't add up to vulnerable because there are some three way races where everyone is within 5%)
Liberal 28
NDP 17
Cons 15
BQ 7

Now lets look at the net risk benefit of an election (assuming votes do not change much negative means the party has more at risk than opportunities positive means more opportunities than risks).
NDP 11 net opportunities
BQ 5 net opportunities
Liberal -3 net risks
Conservatives -11 net risks



Now finally lets look at the range these close races give if the votes stay close to where they are now -- a swing of 5% would likely indicate the extremes of these ranges:

Liberals Low 104 High 163
Conservatives Low 73 High 114
NDP Low 13 High 36
BQ Low 52 High 61
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Reverend Blair said:
I know you don't support the Liberals, but I suggest that you would not be unhappy with a Liberal re-election,

As long as it's a minority, I can live with it. I can live with a Conservative minority too, since you would have less power than you do now. Either way would give us a chance to institute PR, which would get rid of the real democratic deficit, and push through some legislation banning corporate donations, which would serve to minimize things like the sponsorship scandal happening again.

However, my comments are not directed at you, per se, but the liberal voters who may be having some problem voting for this group again.

They can all vote NDP. We are the only federal party that hasn't been implicated in the Sponsorship Scandal at all.

I don't know about less power, as I maintain that we will be at least two years before the next election if there is a minority. Which ever party loses will certainly change leaders, with that not happening until next spring, probably, and the next opportunity to have a non-confidence vote would then be the budget the next spring. As I recall, the Reform/Alliance originally supported PR, so that may occur, all right. Corporoate donations? Maybe, maybe not, haven't really looked into that.

Any connection the Conservatives had with the sponsorship program was over 12 years ago. And I really don't know if the Liberals want to go into the past conservative government, given that they tried to sue Brian over the Airbus thing and lost, and had to apologise. There is also the GST and NAFTA issues they campaigned on, and changed after they were elected, as well as the helicopter issue and how much that cost the Canadian taxpayer and we still have no helicopters all because Jean da Boss had a hissy fit.

I really don't know how I want this election to come out. I truly believe that we are at a very important time in the history of Canada, and these election results may cause great damage to this country, or at the very least, great changes as to how this country is governed. I hear arguments that whichever party wins, Quebec may be pissed, so that seems to be a wash. You can deny it, but if the Liberals get reelected, the Western separation issue will come to the fore, or at least demands for a reconfiguration of confederation. I personally think this will happen in Alberta, especially if Ralph steps down after the federal election and the new PC leader comes out with a strong anti-Ottawa stance. Believe me, it will go over well at that time. Whatever you may think of Ralph, when push came to shove over the last few years, he has always backed down to the feds. A new leader may not be quite as willing to do the same, which will result in some interesting times. I do think the same sentiment also exists in BC, and that the same thing may occur, albeit on a smaller scale, if the Liberals are elected.

In a lot of ways, the West has grown up and with the financial clout that is now here, a lot of head offices and businesses are moving to the West, and quite frankly, I think this scares the hell out of Central Canada, and they don't know how to deal with it. Let's face it, Toronto hates to be second place to anything in Canadian economic or political issues.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I don't know about less power, as I maintain that we will be at least two years before the next election if there is a minority.

With a Liberal minority. The Harperites are likely to try to push through some extremely unpopular things and they would be voted down.

As I recall, the Reform/Alliance originally supported PR, so that may occur, all right.

They did. Then they fooled themselves into thinking they could win a majority government and decided they didn't like it anymore.

Corporoate donations? Maybe, maybe not, haven't really looked into that.

Check out Manitoba's legislation on it. No money from corporations or unions. The Conservatives here hate it, but federally they keep saying that the Liberals are the ones that live off of corporate donors, so they'd look stupid voting against such a bill.

Any connection the Conservatives had with the sponsorship program was over 12 years ago.

So? They still have a direct connection to Guite and there are still plenty of active members from that era...especially in the Quebec wing.

There is also the GST and NAFTA issues they campaigned on,

But that was under a different PM. Martin is likely the guy responsible for keeping those programs, but that isn't how it will be presented because nobody knows for sure...at least nobody that is talking. The official spin is that the Conservatives screwed up everything so badly that there was no way out of either.

as well as the helicopter issue and how much that cost the Canadian taxpayer and we still have no helicopters all because Jean da Boss had a hissy fit.

The helicopter deal was a bad deal though...too much money for too little equipment. It can easily be spun to show Conservative irresponsibility, especially when we're supposed to be rebuilding our military.

I really don't know how I want this election to come out.

Oh sure you...you want an NDP majority. :wink:

I truly believe that we are at a very important time in the history of Canada, and these election results may cause great damage to this country, or at the very least, great changes as to how this country is governed.

All indications on issues-based polls over the last decade show Canadians moving in the opposite direction from both the Conservatives and the actions of the Liberals. Canadians want social programs and they want to be a force on the world stage again...moving away from the American influence that Mulroney got us tangled up in.

That puts most of Canada in a very similar frame of mind as Quebec. I'm guessing that we'll end up with some sort of sovereignty associaton there.

You can deny it, but if the Liberals get reelected, the Western separation issue will come to the fore, or at least demands for a reconfiguration of confederation. I personally think this will happen in Alberta, especially if Ralph steps down after the federal election and the new PC leader comes out with a strong anti-Ottawa stance.

Been there, done that. I doubt you'll pull 20% of the vote in Alberta. If you try to take Saskatchewan and BC to go with you, that will drop to between 10% and 15%. There is a lot of anger, but most of your population has moved there since the NEP and a lot of people are getting antsy about the oil patch with Kyoto coming in.

That's silly because oil industry estimates are for Kyoto costing between 7 and 25 cents a barrel...next to nothing in a world of $50 per bbl oil. Klein and the Harperites have been playing up the damage Kyoto will do though. They aren't really good at this politics thing.

A new leader may not be quite as willing to do the same, which will result in some interesting times. I do think the same sentiment also exists in BC, and that the same thing may occur, albeit on a smaller scale, if the Liberals are elected.

BC has a lot of NDP supporters in it, as well as federal Liberals. Same with Saskatchewan. Separation is a no-go in those provinces. You will also have to deal with the north, which will go NDP, not wanting to supply gas to a separated Alberta. Without that gas you might as well shut down the oil sands.

n a lot of ways, the West has grown up and with the financial clout that is now here, a lot of head offices and businesses are moving to the West, and quite frankly, I think this scares the hell out of Central Canada, and they don't know how to deal with it.

Financial clout is not the same as democratic power. By the time you have enough people to have power within the larger democracy, your demographics will have shifted left.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Rev:

Your last post was way too long to repost and reply to each item. Suffice it to say that I disagree with virtually everything, and most of your arguments are based on left wing and liberal spin. I guess based on what's happening this morning in Ottawa, and based on one poll at least, we may all find out with the nex 6 - 8 weeks how all this will turn out.

The one thing I do find rather frustrating is you keep going back to the eight years the conservatives were in power and put all sorts of spin on things that happened. Quite frankly, and as I have said on many other posts, they conservatives paid the price for all that you claim happened. I really wish you would focus more on the current liberal government, and the previous ones with Jean da boss. They are the ones who have basically put the country in this position, not Mulroney. Let's make them pay the same price the country made Mulroney pay. We can't do anything more about the Mulroney government, it has already been done. Let's make sure the Liberals are held to the same standard of punishment.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More than politics, t

It isn't spin, Blue...it's reality. Our real problems started when Mulroney was in power. The Liberals, and I blame Martin for this more than Chretien because the policies are from the right side of the Liberal party, made things worse. Without Mulroney though, none of this would have been set in motion and Martin would not have gained so much power as Minister of Finance.

As for whether I should go back to the Mulroney years...if it's valid...I regularly hear Conservatives, especially from Alberta, go all the way to the Trudeau years to justify their arguments. You have have raised the NEP yourself on more than one occassion. Correct if I'm wrong, but unless I've stumbled into an alternate universe Trudea came before Mulroney.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Hmmmm Mulroney was he not responsible fot the GST and NAFTA?That ass cost me a job and a ton of money please can we do that again :p :x :lol:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More than politics, t

You ain't seen nothing yet, Mr.Mom. The Conservatives have a long history of opposing unions and rolling back labour legislation. We'd all be working ten hour days six days a week for fifty cents an hour if they thought they could get away with it.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
In an effort to understand some of what's going on, I've dusted off some of my university textbooks, specifically my Political Studies, and Sociology...I'd like to share a few points from the sociology text...some of it is rather long, but will in the end be quite relevent to what we are seeing today...

Constitution-Making, Canadian Style

Just three weeks before the 23 June, 1990 deadline for ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney invited the ten provincial premiers to dinner in Ottawa. Mulroney called the meeting to discuss objections to the constitutional deal made in 1987 at a cottage on Meech Lake. Later, he bragged that he and his officials had plotted the event weeks before. They based it on the best time "to roll the dice" (Globe and Mail, June 12, 1990, p.1.).

The "impromptu" dinner meeting stretched to seven harrowing days. The premiers and the prime minister locked themselves behind closed doors. They emerged only once daily to inform the nation on the progress of negotiations. Except for those brief outings, the bargaining--carried out by eleven white, upper-class men--was entirely secret. "Somewhere along the past decade or so in the women's movement," wrote Toronto Star columnist Michele Landsberg, "it stopped looking normal to me to see 11 men on a platform and not a single woman in sight. Now it looks downright peculiar. Unbalanced, unseemly, and unfair" (Toronto Star, June 12, 1990). The lack of women, minorities, and aboriginal peoples in the constitutional male encounter group formed part of what turned out to be an astonishing get-together in Ottawa.

Press coverage of the affair amazed many Canadians. Influential correspondents appeared to be less than impartial. Leading media personalities expressed strong opinions favouring a constitutional agreement that only a small minority of the population supported (Toronto Star, June 17, 1990). On CBC's "The National" secret details of a constitutional deal were revealed twenty-four hours before Prime Minister Mulroney announced the bargain. Persistent reports suggested that the Prime Minister's Office and Ontario officials manipulated the media to put pressure on dissenting provinces to sign the accord.

Leaked accounts suggested the spirit of a crooked poker game mixed with a locker room brawl. Canada's first ministers consumed copious quantities of liquor. One wag speculated that Premier Bourassa may have got the best deal because he restricted his drinking to milk.

Mulroney's officials tried to trick Clyde Wells into signing a document from which they had covertly removed a key paragraph inserted by Wells himself. The other holdout premier, Manitoba's Gary Filmon, complained that federal negotiators intercepted his telephone conversations. Manitoba opposition leaders Gary Doer, and Sharon Carstairs related similar experiences.

Disgusted with the dirty tricks, Wells and Filmon tried to leave at a late stage in the negotiations. Alberta's Don Getty, a former Canadian Football League quarterback and strong Meech supporter, spread-eagled himself in front of the doorway, blocking their exit. At that moment, a tactic agreed upon beforehand by Mulroney and Ontario Premier David Peterson went into action. Peterson threw six of Ontario's twenty-four pork-barrel Senate seats onto the table, promising some of these for Newfoundland and the Western provinces. Wells and Filmon returned to their chairs.

Nobody could explain where an Ontario premier got the authority to give away federal Senate seats "like Crackerjack prizes." But his gesture accurately reflected the mood of trickery, greed, and acrimony that has characterized recent Canadian constitution-making. "I never felt so alienated from Canada," said Landsberg, "as when I watched these turkeys 'save' it."

Sources: Globe and Mail, June 12, 13, 1990; Michele Landsberg, "Macho swarm dominated Meech TV gig," Toronto Star, June 12, 1990; Toronto Star, June 17, 1990.

Mulroney was a bastard, and a traitor to this country, and I have not reason to believe that Harper will be any less so...
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
:lol: :lol: 8) When Harper was here opening our new UniversityThat he had absoulutly nothing to do with :p He would not talk to the local media would not answer questions and gave a brief statement and ran away.Unless it's scipted like Bush's conferences he will not answer any thing this is a very dangeruos precedent to set in a democracy. :x