wanna play Canadian politics?

[iverglas]

I just got an email from Libby Davies, the New Democratic Party House Leader in the Canadian House of Commons.

Jack Layton is the former Toronto city councillor who was elected leader of the NDP last winter. He does not have a seat in the House of Commons at present, but is considering running in a by-election for one of the currently vacant seats.

Paul Martin is the Prime-Minister-in-waiting, having been all but already crowned leader of the Liberal Party. He is also a shipping magnate who sails his ships under third world flags of convenience, fires Canadian crew to employ foreign workers at a fraction of the cost, used his previous position in the federal Cabinet to keep the tax loopholes he uses for these purposes open ... and is as right-wing as Canadians come.

If you think a Prime Minister should be proud to fly our flag, you're not alone.

You've probably heard it about it in the news, and now it's time to take part in Jack Layton and Canada's NDP cheeky website on Paul Martin, www.flyourflag.ca

At www.flyourflag.ca, you'll get to vote for which flag you think Paul Martin will fly from the Peace Tower when he replaces Brian Mulroney as Canada's most conservative prime minister ever. And we're not making this up...as a shipping magnate, Martin flew other countries' flags to get out of Canadian taxes, Canadian wages and Canadian environmental laws.

So which flag will go up the Peace Tower when he's PM? It's up to you because your vote counts on www.flyourflag.ca -- and NDP Leader Jack Layton will hoist the winning flag outside the Liberal leadership convention in November.

If you've got an e-mail address, you've got a vote on www.flyourflag.ca -- so take part, find out the real goods on your next prime minister and pass it along to a friend. (If you're looking for a French version, visit www.drapeauavendre.ca) <"flag for sale.ca">

Together, let's make sure more people vote on www.flyourflag.ca than voted to elect Paul Martin as our next prime minister...without anyone knowing what he really thinks.

So click, and feel free to vote: which flag should Martin fly over Parliament? I think I'll vote for Visa, myself.

Oh yeah. You can also click on a bunch of links to learn about the next slimey right-wing millionaire Prime Minister of Canada. Stuff worth knowing about your neighbours.

As late as summer 2003, Martin claimed he was weighing
his options on same-sex marriage, making him one of the
only people in Canada yet to make up his mind. He's since
made his mind up: Everything is on the table when it
comes to equal marriage, including the ridiculous option of
taking civil marriage rights away from heterosexuals just to
keep same-sex couples out. After remaining completely
silent as more than 50 Liberal MPs supporting him voted
against same-sex marriage, expect no leadership from
Martin on this file.

You really have to laugh when you hear Paul Martin talk
about Medicare and co-operative federalism. As finance
minister, he enacted the deepest cuts to Medicare in
history - all without any consultation whatsoever with the
provinces. As for keeping it public, in the wake of his
Armageddon budget of 1995, Martin quietly took a clause
out of the Canada Health Act that protected the public
delivery of key services like homecare. And when sitting on
the biggest surplus in history with Canadians saying
Medicare was their priority, what did he do? Build a
modern, innovative system? Nope. Spend $100 billion on
tax cuts instead.

...

Gee. And some of youse guys that that Liberals wuz "liberal".

.

[Maple]

1. Paul Martin

is not remotely right wing.

His father helped bring in universal health care amongst other things, and Martin Jr has always said he intended to further his late father's agenda.

Paul already has Maurice Strong on board, and several other known left-Liberals.

I don't know why people think he's right wing...just because he eliminated the deficit??

[SeveneightyWhoa]

3. Paul Martin is only right wing

..compared to Chretien, at the most. He's pretty centrist, as most Canadians are.

[HEyHEY]

4. And because he owns a shipping company

They all get mad at him for having the gall to take advantage of the same things every other shipping agent takes advantage of.

[Maple]

8. I'd agree he's a centrist

and it's true that's what most Canadians are.

And he turned the shipping company over to his sons earlier this year.

[HEyHEY]

2. Ummm

"Paul Martin will fly from the Peace Tower when he replaces Brian Mulroney as Canada's most conservative prime minister ever"

I'd say that comment is going MORE than a bit too far. I could name ten more conservative Prime Ministers

[Spazito]

5. The NDP would be wise to get Jack into the house first...

then they can hammer away if they wish. I am waiting re Paul Martin. He sure as heck is better than either the Alliance or the Conservative leaders and Jack Layton has yet to prove himself at all, imo.

[iverglas]

43. run Jack run

I was reading a Sun the other day (hit me -- we went out for lunch and it's all the restaurant had). Letter to the editor from Jack, forcefully calling on the Liberals running the world to get their asses in gear and call a by-election in Ottawa Centre. The putrid Mac Harb was elevated to the Senate weeks ago, and there's still no word on when Ottawa Centre might get a new rep.

Looked like a not very veiled declaration. ;)

Ottawa Centre has in the past sent Mike Cassidy to Toronto as provincial leader of the NDP and down the street to Parliament Hill as a federal MP, and Evelyn Gigantes to Queen's Park as the MPP and, under Rae, a member of the provincial cabinet. It has a "left" Liberal provincial MPP at the moment.

It wouldn't be a cakewalk for Jack ... but a win would not approach being sufficient payback for the years of Harb-induced nausea that the Liberals have subjected that riding to and is not unimaginable, given the depth of hatred for the stupefyingly stupid and crassly corrupt and unspeakably useless Harb even among Liberal stalwarts in the vicinity.

Harb's heir apparent is a formerly "left" backroom/pundit Liberal who managed the campaign for Maude Barlow (now Council of Canadians) against Harb for the nomination years ago, but is now in Paul Martin's pocket.

.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

6. Jack Layton / NDP

The fact that this site is run by Jack Layton and the NDP says a lot about those two entities. I used to contemplate supporting the NDP, but after extreme overexaggerations like the site in question, I'm glad I decided to go Liberal.

[iverglas]

44. maybe

you could identify and quote one of those "extreme exaggerations" on the site that you object to, hm?

That's how it's usually done, if somebody wants to be taken seriously. Of course, if somebody just wants to badmouth somebody or something else, I guess that wouldn't be necessary.

.

[AmericanErrorist]

7. Bump

n/t

[sweetheart]

9. So what are you saying?

Surely he would not be the preferred liberal leader if he was a neocon... and his stand against canadian bank mergers during his finance minister period shows that certain ilk.

I do not know about shipping... surely a person from that sector would have to speak about the global competetive pressures in that area, and not just about some flags.

In his work in charge of the liberalization of global finance under the United nations, Mr. Martin has been quite liberal and exceptional championing a regimen that would have brought (if anyone in the G7 leadership in 98 was sincere) a radical shift towards open financial access for all 6 billion human beings on the planet... increasing property rights and human rights.

You're wrong about Mr. Martin. He will prove a more dynamic and progressive liberal leader than chretien.

[Cascadian]

10. Paul Martin strikes me as playing a Canadian version of "Repub Lite"

I watch the CBC News on occasion and from what I see, Paul Martin makes Jean Chretien look like a Marxist. He seems determined to make the Liberal Party a more right leaning party. A far cry from where the Liberals were under Trudeau. If I were able to vote in Canada, I would probably be voting NDP this time around. I have visited the NDP website and read up about Jack Layton. I like the party and what it stands for and I like Layton and wished he would become PM instead of Martin.

Not to sound paranoid, but I have a strange feeling that Karl Rove and his right-wing buddies could have their hands in the upcoming Canadian election. I just get that feeling. The possibility that the Alliance and Tories could be uniting is only part of the plan. I hope I am not the only person speculating that possibility.

John

[HEyHEY]

11. I think the Alliance/conservatives will be throttled

This upcoming election. As for the NDP. I would never vote for that rag tag buncha Marxsist dropouts. I find so much of what they say to be so unreasonable I could never see it working..but that's just me.

[iverglas]

12. you got it

Well, probably not about the Karl Rove bit. We're just not important enough, and we're so good at electing guys that your guys like anyhow. I mean, the prezzes and PMs hate each other every second time, but the real guys get along fine. Believe me, your guys know better than to waste their time on our Tory rump and Alliance loons. They've got Paul Martin! What more could they want??

But the rest of it, yup, you got it. And my Canadian friends here, I assure you, are NOT "the left" in Canada. The left does not vote Liberal; the Liberals are not left. (There are those who would say the NDP is not the left either, and I wouldn't disagree to the death; 1 out of 13 people in my riding voted Green last month.) Methinks they spend too much time watching US television and hanging around DU, and being lulled into thinking that acquiescence to demands for "socially liberal" concessions, like same-sex marriage and decriminalization of marijuana (in respect of both of which leadership has been rather spectacularly lacking among Liberals anyhow) a revolution makes.

Paul Martin Jr. is not his daddy. And the Liberal Party is not left.

.

[Cascadian]

14. See. This is what I like about the Canadian electoral system

You have more choices out there for everybody and not just two parties. We need reforms badly here to give the other parties a better opportunity. It is ridiculous to call ourselves a Democracy when there is a duopoly.


John

[HEyHEY]

15. As far as the Country en mass goes..they are the left

You can call th NDP the extreme left. But aside from some issues involving the West I think the Libs have done a good job.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. NDP "extreme left"? Not from where I stand. Which, I presume,

is to your extreme left. ;-)

It's a truism that Liberals campaign like New Democrats and govern like Conservatives. And it's also true that the NDP campaigns like socialists and governs like Liberals.

But the NDP remain the best, left hope for Canada, and Layton is the best hope the NDP has had in more than 15 years. (He was also my city councillor, and a damn good one.)

[HEyHEY]

21. Compare the Liberals to the Alliance

The Liberals are left....decriminzaling marijuana. Social Spending, not supporting the IRaqi war..they're left like it or not. Too many extreme lefties seem to think something doesn't count as left unless it's led by Che Gueverra

[Sephirstein]

25. lol...

There are some NASTY people in the Liberals, including this homophobic fuckface (whom the people of Toronto were moranic enough to elect over Layton as their MP in 1997) who has the gall to call himself a Trudeau Liberal, but others who have far more in common with Jack Layton than with Paul Martin.

[HEyHEY]

26. Yes true

There are also some racsist homophobic NDP supporters and I bet NDP candidates too.

[Sephirstein]

29. Well...

There are 2 NDP MPs not comfy with same-sex marriage, but only one opposed it...She had to stay home though, because the NDP doesn't allow members to vote freely on issues in the platform. (They can do vote their conscience otherwise...)

[HEyHEY]

30. We need to get rid of that way of doing things

Independent provate voting is what I like

[iverglas]

34. really?

"Independent provate voting is what I like"

We need to get rid of the idea of electing candidates who will represent us in Parliament according to the platform they and their party campaigned on?

What a charming idea. May as well just mark your ballot randomly, or stay home, I'd say.

When the members of the NDP, through their delegates, at Convention, vote on a party platform that includes support for same-sex marriage, and a candidate from bumfuck Saskatchewan or wherever (I don't actually know who the unNDP NDP MP who opposes same-sex marriage is) seeks and wins the nomination to be the NDP candidate in a federal election, and the party, on the understanding that the candidate in question supports the NDP platform (else why would s/he have sought the NDP nomination?) accepts that candidate and provides him/her with campaign assistance and then, when s/he is elected by people to whom s/he represents him/herself as a supporter of the NDP platform by putting "NDP" in great big letters all over his/her campaign literature and signs, is granted the perks of caucus membership (research, a chance to ask questions in the House ...) and a say in caucus positions in the House, and seats on House committees as an NDP nominee ... well, hell, that person should just be able to engage in "private voting" on matters that s/he has been elected to vote on.

The NDP does not permit free votes on such matters as capital punishment, abortion and same-sex marriage, because the party has a policy on each of those matters that has been democratically decided by the members of the party. If an NDP MP doesn't like the democratically-decided policy of his/her party, s/he is free to resign from caucus and sit (and seek re-election, ha) as an independent, or cross the floor or move along to an Alliance seat. The NDP would no more allow free votes on those matters than the Liberals would allow their MPs to vote against the Liberal government's budget or the Alliance would allow its members to vote for it.

If you don't like party politics, well that's just dandy. Perhaps you can get together with some of those grouchy useless seat-warming right-wing Liberal backbenchers and come up with something else.

The Liberals have had and have a number of outstandingly admirable "socially liberal" MPs -- Warren Allmand, for example, of course belonged in the NDP, but of course would never have got elected as such in Montreal; nonetheless, few politicians have his intelligence and integrity. Irwin Cotler, also of Montreal, on good days. Marc McGuigan. Even the smarmy womanizing Lloyd Axworthy (I do have the benefit of somewhat closer acquaintance with some of these folks than most here, I venture to guess) did good stuff along those lines.

Just as the Tories have had Flora MacDonald and David MacDonald, the reddest of the red Tories, and others. David did convert of course, when he hooked up with Alexa McDonough, until recently leader of the NDP.

Paul Martin Jr. IS NOT one of these people. He is economically right-wing, an intellectual non-entity, and simply doesn't give a shit about "socially liberal" issues, except in so far as they affect his chances of gaining and retaining power in order to put his economic agenda into effect. He is a player in the transnational corporate world, and he IS NOT his father. Popular wisdom is that his father is spinning in his grave, in fact.

Was anybody else here actually born, or out of diapers, when Trudeau first emerged on the federal scene? I worked on a Liberal campaign in the 1968 federal, when I was 15. Less than 18 months later, I was working on an NDP campaign. Trudeau was a charmer if you were a kid who liked smoking dope. He also provided an evolutionary jumpstart when it came to individual liberty issues. But he was NOT economically "left". He had the good fortune to govern in prosperous times, as did Uncle Bill Davis and his Tories in Toronto in the same era, but when times got tough, he went after the unions, his economic policies were anti-worker, despite his legendary youthful days picketing with the Asbestos workers.

It's easy to look back from these righter-wing days and see Trudeau Liberals through a haze of fond remembrance, even if one was there. But Paul Martin and his tax cuts and social spending cuts are the reality of today's Liberals. Unless the popular mood does indeed swing a bit leftward, as it seems to have done -- and then they will do what Liberals have always done: whatever is necessary to keep their grasp on power in the interests they truly serve, as little as is possible and only as much as will not interfere with those interests.

It is simply a joke to think that some of the Canadians here are "left", except as seen through the most blinkered USAmerican eyes. I'm sure they look "left" to such eyes, with their (to generalize) support for universal health care and same-sex marriage and the like. When seen from outside US borders, through Canadian or European or even farther-away eyes, they are middle of the road and unsophisticated. Hell, my lower-middle-class, high-school educated but smart-cookie, not really political parents vote(d) NDP.

Canadians on the left do not denigrate the aspirations of the people of Quebec or the First Nations people, do not send their children to private schools or "homeschool" them, do not seek to destroy the Canadian public health care system, do not oppose Canadian firearms legislation, do not support tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, do not support cuts in welfare and subsidized-housing spending, do not think that the Criminal Code should permit adults to assault children, *do* criticize the NDP for failing to provide leadership in a leftward direction, and very definitely *do not* vote Liberal (except in exigent circumstances, heh).

.

[Sephirstein]

36. I have no empathy for separatists...

The Quiet Revolution gave Quebec's Francophone majority what has always rightfully been theirs.

Trying to enforce language laws and break up this country is just being greedy.

The only separatist party with any sort of legitimate arguments is the UFP. (As it's objections to staying in Canada are rooted in anti-globalisation and in a level of social liberalism beyond what even the NDP advocates.)

The Péquistes are just puritanical bigots playing a shell game of identity politics. Parizeau and Landry are as backwards and as disgusting as Day, Manning, Harper, and Vander Zalm.

[iverglas]

37. well, I didn't say I did

What I referred to was the legitimate aspirations of the people (singular) of Quebec. The people of Quebec is a people, and a people is entitled to self-determination. Self-determination does not necessarily require statehood.

I regard the Quebec sovereignist movement today much as I regard the Eritrean separatists and just about any other legitimate self-determination movement that became a tool for just another, although indigenous, élite. (That is, where the movement enjoys some degree of success and doesn't instead become the tool of violent fanatics.)

Nonetheless, the Quiet Revolution alone did not succeed to the extent that was necessary to protect the existence of the Quebec people, as a people with a language and culture of its own, and the rights of the individual members of that culture to belong to it and develop within it, within Canada. That, after all, was the foundational bargain on which this country was built.

This kind of stuff does happen to be my literal bread and butter, and it's not something I find easy to discuss with, you should forgive the expression, laypeople. Citizenship in a country doesn't automatically confer expert knowledge of all its historical and social and political realities, or of the depth and breadth of thought about things like the very concept of "culture", and the right to self-determination, and a lot of other jazz.

Ever read the Supreme Court's decision in the Reference re Secession of Quebec? I must confess I've never got around to reading the entire thing; I did thoroughly read a number of the papers prepared for the parties to the case by Canadian and international experts in constitutional and international law.

This is another instance where things that exist and happen don't exist and happen in a vacuum.

I was always, and in fact still am at times, made rather irritable by what always seemed to be just incessant whining coming from the direction of Quebec. As I've come to have a much better understanding of the whole business of culture and belonging, and the importance of those things for individuals, I've grown more tolerant. It gets easier to separate the demands of a PQ government, as just another power-hungry provincial government barely distinguishable from a Tory Ontario, from demands that are legitimate from that standpoint. And even if the PQ may not quite have entirely legitimate reasons for its demands sometimes, and what it does or it might do if its demands are granted might be more in the élite's interests than the public's, that doesn't mean that the demands themselves -- things like greater control over immigration and labour market policy -- aren't legitimate. If the Quebec people then want to elect the UFP or anyone else to exercise that control, dandy, but that's up to them.

The lack of what you or I might see as "democracy" in Quebec, i.e. the failure of the government to govern in the genuine interests of the people, is no different from the lack of democracy in the rest of the country or in any other country. People elect bad governments, which adopt bad policies, for all the reasons we are familiar with. That doesn't obviate their right to govern themselves.

The right to self-determination is not dependent on who is claiming it, or what political or economic policies they espouse. George W. Bush and his Middle East roadmap notwithstanding.

Have you ever read much about Belgium? If you think the politics of self-determination is complicated here, try that one. Interestingly, the Belgians call their devolution of a range of powers to smaller, culture/language-based groups "federalism".

Complicated though it may be, we can't just deny that self-determination is a right. I mean, we can, but then we really wouldn't be progressive.

We're actually a beacon of sophistication and advancement in the world, in this respect. Our expertise in organizing a society with two dominant cultures, two official languages, two parallel legal systems, and doing it pretty much peacefully these days, is much sought after in developing countries with similar historical / political / cultural realities.

If, say, Belgium and Canada were to be the models for a post-war Iraqi government, things might work out quite differently, and much better, than they are at all likely to with the US running the show. We pretty much originated the concept of a state composed of co-existing cultures, each having the equal right to exist and develop and the powers needed for that purpose, back in 1867. A Kurdish "province" within a federal Iraq, for instance, with rights and powers similar to Quebec's at the same time as the benefits of membership in that state, might not look too bad to them.

Anyhow. I gotta do some of that work.

.

[Frederic Bastiat]

41. Separatism is all but dead

The big issue in Québec is the (thanks to the Provincial Liberals) imminent demerger of municipalities. A lot of disgruntled public officials these days are feeling the squeeze right now as the size of the government is being cut.

[HEyHEY]

45. I'm calling bullshit on some of that

First off, one of the most left wing people I know sent her children to boarding school.

Yes we do need to get rid of the system of voting on a party platform that way the person you elect represents YOU. If that person does not want to vote pro-same sex marraige or something, let them speak up about it, it says something about the honesty of the entire party. ANd they will learn they better change and get candidates who truly represent the party in the future.

In Canad, I don't think middle of the road is unsophisticated, I think it's simply smart. Any idealism, left wing or right is bull headed and foolish. Whatever works is what should be in place.

[iverglas]

47. you can call what you like whatever you like

You may have noticed how much it matters to me.

I'm not averse to talking to people who are wrong-headed or unknowledgable, as long as they are civil and speak for some apparent reason. But I have little desire to talk to anyone whose idea of discourse is to "call bullshit" and fling unverifiable anecdotes around, and just keep on saying what s/he "thinks" about stuff.

Oh, btw, I know a highish profile lefty who sent her kid to a private school for a while. The local public school apparently didn't provide the physical access her kid needed. Seemed kinda weird to me -- I mean, I'd have gone for the next public school over -- but then I didn't have the facts.


"Yes we do need to get rid of the system of voting on a party platform that way the person you elect represents YOU."

Yeah. All 30 or 40,000 YOUs who voted for the person. Or whichever small faction of those thousands the "representative" in question might choose to decide to represent. Or -- just you? It would just be pretty damned hard for anyone to represent, oh, both you and me at the same time, in your system, I think. Me, I'm happy knowing what they've committed themselves to voting for by running on the platform that I can then expect them to support in return for my voting for them. It's just so sensible, I think.


"Any idealism, left wing or right is bull headed and foolish. Whatever works is what should be in place."

I haven't actually said anything that has anything to do with "idealism". On the other hand, though, I may be hearing you say that as long as the trains run on time, you're happy.

In real life, I don't get into discussions with people who want to tell me that what they think is right; I do discuss things with people who want to discuss things, and who, hopefully, know something about the things they want to discuss. I like my rule just fine.

.

[HEyHEY]

51. All of those "yous" make up one collective you.

And "Calling Bullshit" is a figure of speech don't be such a teacher.

You are such a hypocrite all you've been doing this whole time is talking about what you think "Is right" I'm done with you, have fun with your losing party full of backward outdated thinkers.

[Minstrel Boy]

31. It counted when it was Trudeau rather than Mulroney,

but style aside, Chretien entrenched much of Mulroney's continentalist legacy. It's only in his last year, as a lame duck, that Chretien's shown much interest in leaving his own, progressive mark.

[Maple]

16. Paul Martin Jr

is very much like his daddy...and nobody wants the 'left'

They're just as crazy as the 'right'

The NDP hasn't made govt in the over 60 years they've been in existence...and for good reason.

Canadians are centrists. No wings...either side.

[HEyHEY]

17. AM I blind

I mean so many NDP supporters seem to really believe the NDP could run this country....well. Am I missing something?

[iverglas]

18. you really might want to speak for yourself

I'm a Canadian, and I'm not a "centrist". Whatever that might be.

The NDP governed Ontario and British Columbia in the recent past, and currently governs Manitoba and Saskatchewan. (Looking forward to a Saskatchewan Party win next month, are you? The Saskatchewan Party, for those unfamiliar, is a local outcropping of the Alliance, although even stupider and more vicious.)

The thousands of people who voted for me when I have been an NDP candidate apparently didn't agree with you, either. In fact, twice as many of them voted for me as voted Tory, provincially.

In the riding where I live (not the one where I've been a candidate), 23% of the voters voted NDP in the provincial election 2 weeks ago -- slightly more than half as many as voted Liberal, and more than voted Conservative. (And take it from me, a goodly number of those Liberal votes were really NDP votes -- like mine and my co-vivant's, since we were truly desperate for "anybody but Harris" and were wary of a close three-way split in this constituency.) Lookie there; we didn't have an Alliance candidate, but there was that ~8% Green vote. And we've elected New Democrats about as often as we've elected Liberals, both provincially and federally, in the last 25 years.

Hmm.

Green + NDP = over 3/10
Liberal = under 5/10
Conservative = just over 2/10.

Yeah. That's overwhelmingly Liberal, all right.

This ain't the US. Not that there are not "wings" to our politics, just that they aren't the 18th century wings that the US has preserved. We're part of the modern world. We're actually engaged in the politics of that world, where someone other than the big rich white guys get a little bit of a voice in what goes on, and there are actual issues of concern to ordinary people on the table. You might want to read some Canadian history if you're really that unaware of the influence, that the NDP and the CCF before it, have had, and the support they have enjoyed and enjoy, in Canada. If you think that you'd be enjoying all that fine health care I seem to recall you boasting about were it not for us, if you don't think that you'd be begging it from some USAmerican HMO or insurance company instead if the CCF/NDP hadn't pushed and led Canada into modernity on that front while there was still time, you're just deluded.

.

[HEyHEY]

19. Read history and you will see the difference between the NDP

50 years ago and the NDP now.
"seem to recall you boasting about"
I've never boasted about Healthcare here. I am currently disgusted with our system.

THere is also a difference betweeen the Provincial NDP parties..I'm talking about the Federal NDP party and how anyone could vote for them.

[iverglas]

22. uh

I believe I was speaking to Maple.

"I'm talking about the Federal NDP party
and how anyone could vote for them."

Funny how so many Canadians do, eh?

.

[HEyHEY]

23. Yeah that sure shows in their representation

[Maple]

32. I said

the majority of Canadians are centrists, third way, middle of the road, mainstream...whatever you want to call it.

You are NDP, and as such are considered left wing.

The NDP has also been a disaster in every province they've been tried.

I'm glad you are a 'true believer'...because you'll need it to sustain you over the NEXT 60 years.

The NDP lives in the past...much as the CA does.

Unelectable. Sorry.

[Sephirstein]

35. Bob Rae?

Bob Rae is a centrist and wants the NDP to become a centrist party (which any idiot can see would make it redundant).

I have no clue why the fuck he was an NDP premier or even in the NDP.

Luckily, the Ontario NDP had the principles to choose Howard Hampton as its new leader over Rae's hand-picked successor.

As for the others:

Romanow, Doer, and Calver were just horrible. (Not.)

Harcourt was fucked over by corrupt elements, and Clark was the Bill Vander Zalm of the NDP. But if you can find a B.C. Premier who wasn't inept and corrupt, let me know. ;)

[iverglas]

38. no love lost

'twixt me and Bob.

Nonetheless, let's not forget the little problem of the state of affairs that Bob inherited when he won that election.

Forgive my source -- it's the first citable thing I found on a quick search:

http://www.publicpower.ca/the_party/history_6.htm

However, things were not as they seemed at Queen’s Park. A recession was coming and the books were not in good shape. The Peterson government had run for election in 1990 on the basis that they had a small budgetary surplus. Rae’s Treasuer Floyd Laughren announced just months after the NDP took office that the province was actually running a deficit of $3-billion. The Liberals were accused of cooking the books and calling a snap election before the recession struck in earnest. Because they unexpectedly lost this election, they were caught out.

Unfond as I am of Rae and his politics, I've never thought it quite fair to blame him for having to cope with the economic situation the Liberals had created and would ultimately have had to deal with had they won that election. And I just somehow can't imagine that they would have dealt with it in a less dishonest way than they'd created it in the first place, or governed any more in the public interest than any other Liberals.

What fun we shall have with them now. As long as they don't start putting widows and orphans in workhouses and selling the schools to scientology, they'll look like working-class heroes next to the late Tories.

.

[Frederic Bastiat]

42. NDP LOL

I'm glad we don't have them in Québec, i've also noticed that the the Bloc Québécois are on that slippery slope to irrelevance these days as native son Martin is about to take the reins in Ottawa.

[HEyHEY]

46. There's separatist support for MArtin?

How will he be recieved there?

[iverglas]

48. good grief

I thought you knew all about this stuff ...

.

[HEyHEY]

I haven't been to Quebec in a while

I prefer to get my info from the people. Which is something I find always differs from the paper to some degree.

[outinforce]

50. Of Broad Brushes and anti-Americanism

"This ain't the US. Not that there are not "wings" to our politics, just that they aren't the 18th century wings that the US has preserved. We're part of the modern world. We're actually engaged in the politics of that world, where someone other than the big rich white guys get a little bit of a voice in what goes on, and there are actual issues of concern to ordinary people on the table."

I confess that I don't know much about Canadian politics. That is why I (wisely, in my own view) refrain from speaking about the Canadian system.

But I simply cannot let this comment of yours, iverglas, pass without comment.

Your comment reveals not only a profound ignorance of the United States, but also what could be considered a jealous hatred for the country on your southern border.

The US is not, as you seem to think, mired in a political system that preserves 18th century wings of politics. LIke it or not, most Americans occupy the center of politics. The job of our two major parties is to try to persuade the center to vote for our party.

And to suggest that the United States is not engaged in the politics of the world is, well, just plain silly. The United States tried isolation in the 1920's and 1930's, and it (among other things) brought the world Adolph Hitler and the horrors of WWII. We are engaged in world politics -- not in the way in which you or I might like, but we are engaged.

You are justifiably proud of your country. Fine. But please do not belittle the United States with silly statements that only reveal your profound lack of knowwledge about how things are down here.

[iverglas]

52. and would you like to know ...

"Your comment reveals not only a profound ignorance of the United States, but also what could be considered a jealous hatred for the country on your southern border."

... what your comments reveal? I'd be happy to make up some equivalently farcical and pig-like noises in return for your own. But I'm going to start charging a fee, as I cautioned you a while ago.


"You are justifiably proud of your country. Fine. But please do not belittle the United States with silly statements that only reveal your profound lack of knowwledge about how things are down here."

What I may or may not be proud of hasn't got thing one to do with what I've said. What it has to do with is knowing what I'm talking about.

And the fact that you responded to what I said with something as utterly and totally irrelevant to what I said as that, and this:

"And to suggest that the United States is not engaged in the politics of the world is, well, just plain silly. The United States tried isolation in the 1920's and 1930's, and it (among other things) brought the world Adolph Hitler and the horrors of WWII. We are engaged in world politics -- not in the way in which you or I might like, but we are engaged."

... demonstrates quite clearly that YOU don't have a clue what I was talking about. As is evident to anyone who does happen to know what s/he's talking about. You see, I wasn't speaking from the perspective of the US, and that's the whole joke ya just don't get, and I have no inclination to explain.

.

[outinforce]

54. Confusion Abounds!

Honestly, iverglas, your ability to confuse and confound confounds me!

Your most recent post suggests that I have made "farcical and pig-like noises". I would ask you to point out where any of my comments have been pig-like, but I have no intention of paying you, of all people, any "fee".

And that is because you post something like this:

"And the fact that you responded to what I said with something as utterly and totally irrelevant to what I said as that, and this:

"And to suggest that the United States is not engaged in the politics of the world is, well, just plain silly. The United States tried isolation in the 1920's and 1930's, and it (among other things) brought the world Adolph Hitler and the horrors of WWII. We are engaged in world politics -- not in the way in which you or I might like, but we are engaged."

... demonstrates quite clearly that YOU don't have a clue what I was talking about. As is evident to anyone who does happen to know what s/he's talking about. You see, I wasn't speaking from the perspective of the US, and that's the whole joke ya just don't get, and I have no inclination to explain."

Now, for those who have not been following along too closely, the post to which I was responding had iverglas saying this:

"This ain't the US. Not that there are not "wings" to our <i.e., Canadian> politics, just that they aren't the 18th century wings that the US has preserved. We're <i.e., Canada is> part of the modern world. We're <i.e., Canada is> actually engaged in the politics of that world,..."

So, no, iverglas, I'm afraid that (as is usually the case when it comes to discovering the "meaning" in your posts), I am quite clueless.

It does seem to me, though, that you very strongly suggested that Canada is (and the U.S. is not) "part of the modern world". You also made, it seems to me, a very strong suggestion that Canada (and not the United States) is "actually engaged" in the politics of the world.

Finally, my south-of-the-US-Canada-border mind tells me that when you were confronted with the silliness of your statement, you chose, rather than responding to the issue, to attempt to suggest (1) that I do not know what I am talking about, (2)that you were speaking from a non-US perspective (as though that made any difference at all), and (3) that the whole thing is little more than an inside-joke.

Since you have no "inclination to explain", I trust that you will simply accept as fact what I have written here.

[Swede]

24. I live in Saskatchewan

I plan on voting NDP. I've been a Liberal all my life,but the Saskatchewan party is just too far right,so I gotta vote for Calvert.
So I guess I vote NDP provincially and Liberal federally.

[Sephirstein]

27. lol...

Don't want Grant Devine II?

[Swede]

28. Exactly!

[AliceWonderland]

13. Good points, Cascadian

I don't think you're paranoid in the least. Even if there weren't ample evidence of electoral hanky-panky, there is always money, money, money...flowing across borders to certain candidates and certain interests. Here are some of my concerns: the current government has landed itself in a (relatively) adverserial role to Washington, and the past few years have seen several nasty trade battles over lumber, steel, etc. Those are the real issues; I tend to see things like the Iraq question as theatre. The things that get the truly powerful riled up are issues of trade, tariffs, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. Especially because at the end of the day, whether it's good or bad, we're still the hewers of wood and drawers of water. I suspect there will be a lot of "support" for Mr. Martin (whatever form that support takes) in powerful American circles. He's proved himself to be friendly to the globalization agenda, even at the cost of Canadian jobs, resources, and most importantly, sovereignty.

I'm especially concerned about the Eastern fishery. "What Eastern fishery??!" Yeah, no kidding. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

[Maple]

33. Well actually

we export high tech as well.

And the only party ever suspected of getting American backing and funds is the CA. It has even been questioned in the House.

Globalization will occur no matter who is PM.

It's a force of history.

[iverglas]

40. uh

What you were replying to, I assume, was:

"The things that get the truly powerful riled up are issues of trade, tariffs, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. Especially because at the end of the day, whether it's good or bad, we're still the hewers of wood and drawers of water."

Yuppers, we do export high tech too. Here are some interesting basic figures:

http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/er124.htm

Check all the things we export that have a value of over $1 billion/year (easy to spot on a quick scan down the list). Knock out the auto pact, just for fun.

2001. Telecommunications (we're the masters), about $6 billion. Aircraft (we're the masters in transportation, too), $8.5 billion. Furniture (we love our chesterfields), almost $5 billion.

Then, we have: Crude oil, $10 billion. Heavy oil, over $4 billion. Electrical current, $2 billion. Natural gas, $16 billion. Paper/paperboard, almost $10 billion. Aluminium, $4 billion. "Wood simply worked" (lumber?), almost $8 billion. Pulp and waste paper, almost $5 billion. A bunch of other wood/paper stuff. And a whole slew of agri-food stuff.

We depend heavily on the export of raw and minimally processed materials. Fact of life. Mainstay of our economy. "At the end of the day", we do depend on those exports. And that's where US trade duplicity is usually aimed, which I suspect was AliceWonderland's point.

Where I don't go with what AliceWonderland says is that the current government has much of anything to do with Canada-US trade conflicts. The US is just an unfair trader, and doesn't need, or usually even have, any excuses for it.

.

.

[LibertyorDeath]

39. Canadian Politics is a complete shit hole. IMHO

[MrPrax]

49. APaulling Martin Junior...

I think it was the Economist in 95 or 96 that did a article on the G7 and noted that Paul Martin was the architect of some of the most austere Monetarist policies of any nation in the G7...his economic policies have indeed been severe and irresponsible...

There is some believe that in Canada their media is more FREE...actually , international reporting tends to be different from the US perspective, but the National reporting is quite 'monolithic'

Even now the biggest story in Canada--Martin Lockheed winning the contract to do their 2006 Census--has been virtually surpressed by ALL media, including the CBC...
The Toronto Star are the only one's promoting this disgust from a Canadian perspective...

I hope the that New Dems can get their sh*t together...
But I feel they are on the ropes federally and probably finished

[iverglas]

53. hmm

Lockheed and the census -- I found my neighbours leaning on my front porch reading that aloud out of the Globe on Saturday morning, so it must not have been just the Star.
;)

I forgot to look it up when I went inside, so haven't seen the details, but hell, am I surprised? Of course not!!! It was the FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT did it. They already privatized the revenue department, what could possibly be surprising after that??

"... but the National reporting is quite 'monolithic'.

Certainly some truth to that. F'r instance, the national media don't seem to be much more able to tell the difference between the Liberal Party and Canada (see ... one has two red stripes beside the red maple leaf, and one has one red stripe beside the red maple leaf ... oh damn, maybe that last one is the government and not the Liberal Party ... shucks, it's just so hard to tell ...).

Paul Martin, at the moment, is the Liberal Party's project, not mine and not the country's. But just try to tell your best girlfriend's inexplicable new backroom-boy Liberal boyfriend that, when they have you around for dinner, and his party's private business, the bleeding leadership race, is aaallll he talks about ...

Anyhow, we're going to have to suffer under a Martinite majority govt. for a while, likely including the government he'll form after he calls an election, before it shakes out, if it's going to.

History could repeat itself, if we were reeaally lucky. Trudeau resigned, John Turner took over, Turner called an election, Turner/Liberals got stomped. Mulroney resigned, Kim Campbell took over, Campbell called an election, Campbell/Tories got eviscerated. Ontario's Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, another losing combo. But the way the current federal Liberals are playing it out likely isn't quite so dumb, damn.

.