It's election time for Canada again, see the vote compass.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And would it really be that terrible if they did secede/separate??????

North America is four times the size of Europe. One can speak English from Alaska to Florida.

But oh boy, imagine one river valley, plus some adjoining snow, that wishes to preserve its own language and culture.

Canada has afforded the separatists every possible right and privilidge imaginable, including, should they get enough votes, the right to form the government

Imagine that, eh? Those privileged Francophones are allowed to vote for parties of their own choice, and should these receive a majority of votes these may even form a government!! And all of this in their own country!


I think I'll file this together with the right of francophones to speak their own language in their own country, of two pages back.

[Beirut]

I am silent on the sovereigntists because I am not arguing for or against them.

All I have done in this thread is to question your language to describe these people. This may create the impression I am only after you. Which is, in effect, very much the case indeed.
Although my sole reason for that is not some trolling or some personal vendetta (I am not aware of any?), but my anger over your terminology to describe Québec sovereignists.

As I said, you have a mountainous chip on your shoulder. (Though you call it anger.)

To you, they are a small activist minority who use deceit and foul means to wrestle away Québec. To me, they are half of francophone Canadians. Terminology like 'traiterous weasel scum' takes on an entirely different meaning, depending on whether one thinks this describes a few politicians and activists, or half of a recently emancipated population.
About which I should add that I do think you may underestimate the genuine nature of the wish for sovereignty in Québec. These people are not tricked into something they do not understand. They understand the implications of independence and the difficulties of separation perfectly fine.

I'll give you a 99% score on your wiki-teligence and ability to say a lot without saying anything at all, but I'm afraid I have to point out that, once again, you reveal an astonishing lack of knowledge as to what is really going on.

May I ask what other subjects you know nothing about yet still give lectures on?

My overriding sentiment is that live's too short for fanaticism.

And yet through a dozen posts, many repleat with personal insults, you exercise that very fanaticism with me. Actually, you called it anger. An anger towards me you yourself said was the only reason you were posting in this thread. Sounds a bit fanatical, Louis.

And you still ignore the rascism and fanaticism of the separatists. I guess your admitted anger with me has indeed blinded you to many things, including your own stated moral center. So once you leave a strong impression that you don't really believe in anything.

[Beirut]

Imagine that, eh? Those privileged Francophones are allowed to vote for parties of their own choice, and should these receive a majority of votes these may even form a government!! And all of this in their own country!

Oh my... back to wiki with you Louis. Your inability to grasp the situation is astonishing.

You claim this is a French issue, but you seem to forget - or at least forgot to read it at wiki - that during the first referendum, while the separatists were trying to destroy the country, the Prime Minister of Canada was - you guessed it - a French-Canadian from Quebec.

And during the second referendum, while the separatists were trying to destroy the country, the Prime Minister of Canada was - you guessed it again - a French Canadian from Quebec.

Both of these French-Canadian Prime Ministers served multiple terms. I think they ran the country for about 25 years between them. So your snarky insinuation that "the English might allow the French to rule the country - what a concept!" is as hollow as the rest of your admittedly anger-based posts; the French often do rule the country and we think that's just great. Hell, Quebec probabaly pumps out more Canadian Prime Ministers then any other province. And who could be voting for those Francophone Prime Ministers? My guess is a whole lot of French and a whole lot of English. Sounds just perfect to me.

Your ongoing attempt to paint French-Canadians as victims is ridiculous and you know it. You are trying to fabricate rascism to uphold you hollow argument. Once again, your anger with me has your post meaningless.

[Furunculus]

as with Kosovo, if we are going to take a leap into the unknown with the redrawing of national boundaries by allowing regions to secede then i fully support the right of minorities within that region who wish to remain with the parent nation to re-secede back into their chosen identity.

northern kosovo with its majority serbian population should be allowed to secede back into serbia.

likewise, if there is a anglophone majority region of quebec with borders contiguous to non-quebec canada then I would fully support their right to remain within canada if quebec chose to secede.

that said, I am generally against opening the pandora's box by diminishing westpalian sovereignty, it is to be discouraged, but not crushed.

for example, if scotland tried to secede i would argue against it process before-hand, but wave them off merrily after the fact, because i don't want a bunch of people in britain who don't feel a significant attachment and loyalty to the rest. this comes with the warning however that their absorption was deemed necessary in the first place because they were an dangerous point of leverage to existential threats outside the kingdom. don't let that happen again!

[Brenus]

“the Prime Minister of Canada was - you guessed it - a French-Canadian from Quebec.”
Err, what is the point? Yugoslav President was a Croat when the process started…

“while the separatists were trying to destroy the country”: This sounds like Milosevic and/or Tudjman.

“Your ongoing attempt to paint French-Canadians as victims is ridiculous and you know it. You are trying to fabricate rascism to uphold you hollow argument. Once again, your anger with me has your post meaningless.” Well, perhaps you will add me on your enemies list but I was shocked by the use of vocabulary as scum, traitors and others epithets.

My experience from Yugoslavia tells me that you are right about secession. You have to avoid it at all costs and negotiate with opponents. Ethnic cleansing is not a good thing.
But you can’t pretend that the French Canadians always had the same rights than the English, that all was perfect in the English Canada, part of the Common Wealth and having an English Queen.

[Beirut]

“the Prime Minister of Canada was - you guessed it - a French-Canadian from Quebec.”
Err, what is the point? Yugoslav President was a Croat when the process started…

It was to counter Louis's point, or lack therof, that French-Canadians are oppressed and have no legitimate voice. On the contrary, Quebec's voice in Canada is thundering and the effect of that voice at a federal level significant.

“while the separatists were trying to destroy the country”: This sounds like Milosevic and/or Tudjman.

Actually, it's Duceppe.

“Your ongoing attempt to paint French-Canadians as victims is ridiculous and you know it. You are trying to fabricate rascism to uphold you hollow argument. Once again, your anger with me has your post meaningless.” Well, perhaps you will add me on your enemies list but I was shocked by the use of vocabulary as scum, traitors and others epithets.

I have no enemies list here - I leave that to Louis and his admittedly anger-based posts - but I do hate the separatists, yes. I live with these people. I know these people. I have had these people tell me to my face that they intend, by hook or by crook, to walk away with the entire landmass of Quebec no matter what anyone says, and that they intend to (further) deprive millions of people of their rights.

So please tell me; what is it exactly I am supposed to love about them?

My experience from Yugoslavia tells me that you are right about secession. You have to avoid it at all costs and negotiate with opponents. Ethnic cleansing is not a good thing.
But you can’t pretend that the French Canadians always had the same rights than the English, that all was perfect in the English Canada, part of the Common Wealth and having an English Queen.

Respecting the past and living in the past are two different things. All I know, is that since I have been conscious of the French-English situation in Quebec, which would be the early 1970's when I was going to a French-Catholic school in Montreal, I have not seen the French people as oppressed. And more to the point; the biggest oppressors of the French people in Quebec are the separatists. The laws passed by the separatist government are more restrictive to the French speaking people of Quebec than anyone else. And the laws the separatist Parti Quebecois wants to put into place when/if they become the provincial government in Quebec will place even more restrictions on the individual rights of the French speaking population. Also, there are millions of French-speaking Quebecers who (twice) voted to remain in Canada, yet the separatists tried to steal the last referendum vote and deprive those millions of their electoral rights.

This is something very few seem to be taking notice of. But I guess it is easier for some people (not yourself) to spend fifteen-minutes on wiki getting an internet "education" on Quebec instead of actually understanding the complexities of the situation that affects - and threatens - millions of people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Beirut, my anger is not directed at you, but at your insulting description of Québec sovereigntists. Which is half of French Canadians. I protest, firmly and not devoid of anger, that these are not 'traiterous weasel scum without honour or sense of right and wrong who should be subjugated by the army and who'll face terrible consequences by you personally'. I shall firmly protest it to the end.

I am not sure you have gained some entitlement from it to go all out with personal insults in each and every one of your posts in some sort of retaliation.


There is nothing else in this thread that I've argued either for or against. Nor am I in the least bit interested in being drawn into any sectarian debate, because, well, life's too short mate.

[lars573]

My experience from Yugoslavia tells me that you are right about secession. You have to avoid it at all costs and negotiate with opponents. Ethnic cleansing is not a good thing.
But you can’t pretend that the French Canadians always had the same rights than the English, that all was perfect in the English Canada, part of the Common Wealth and having an English Queen.

Who has to pretend, they did. And the rebellions of 1837 in upper and lower Canada weren't oppressed French rising against their English oppressors, as Louis was trying paint it. It was the oppressed masses, English and French, rising against what they say as a crooked, autocratic, and oligarchic colonial administration. In both colonies of Canada. Granted the lower Canadian one was more of a real shooting rebellion. The Upper Canadian rebellion of William Lyon Mackenzie's was more of a bar brawl that got out of hand. The rebellion of the Parti patriote, led by James Stuart and Louis-Joseph Papineau (that's right and Englishman and Frenchman working together) lasted longer and had actual battles. And the end result of the rebellion was the establishment of a functional parliamentary democracy under Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, oh look at that an Englishman and Frenchman working together again. Which was a main demand of the Parti patriote in the first place. The long term results of the rebellion was the creation of the Dominion of Canada 30 years later.

Any attempt to oppress and or eliminate French Canadians has failed. When the provinces of Canada were merged in 1841 it carried with a law banning the use of French, an attempt to assimilate them into English language and culture. LaFontaine and Baldwin struck it down. With confederation came the provision that while English was the official language, French would be a parliamentary language as well. Why you might ask? Because French Canadians are too large a minority to shove in hole and forget about, unlike say the First Nations. They are too concentrated to be ignored politically. And they are too well educated for the political influence that concentration affords them not to be used. Many of the great achievements Canada has produced were from English and French Canadians working together to the betterment of both. Which is why the separatists rankle me so much. Louis has been trying to manufacture a history of an oppressed Quebec throwing off one shackle after the other, with the last being remaining a part of Canada. I say that any shackles were shed long ago, before Confederation ever created Canada. I'm not trying to say that Canada is some paradise with no problems political or social, because that would be insanity. I'm saying that if you were to list groups with legitimate grievances against Canada and it's English population, the Québécois are not among them. The Metis and other first nations groups have much more valid grievances Canada. As do the remnants of the Acadien people.

[Subotan]

I'm saying that if you were to list groups with legitimate grievances against Canada and it's English population, the Québécois are not among them. The Metis and other first nations groups have much more valid grievances Canada

Damn it this is exactly why Meth shouldn't have been banned. Oh well, such is the fate of those who produce content.

[Beirut]

Beirut, my anger is not directed at you, but at your insulting description of Québec sovereigntists. Which is half of French Canadians. I protest, firmly and not devoid of anger, that these are not 'traiterous weasel scum without honour or sense of right and wrong who should be subjugated by the army and who'll face terrible consequences by you personally'. I shall firmly protest it to the end.

Your inability to read is matched only by... well nothing. I simply think you are unable to read.

I never said the separatis should be subjegated by the army, I said my rights should be protected by the army. And your insinuation that I will target separatist in some Rambo rage, is another mistake on your part. If you would take the time to try and read through the anger clouding your vision, you will see that I have never denied the separtists anything except their perceived "right" of absconding with the entire landmass of Quebec against the wishes, and in violation of the rights, of millions of people.

I continue to wonder why you ignore that fact in such thundering silence; that the people you say I should be nice to are the same people who are taking great pains to deprieve millions of people of their rights.

I am not sure you have gained some entitlement from it to go all out with personal insults in each and every one of your posts in some sort of retaliation.

My dear sir, the first personal insult in this thread came from you and was directed at me.

If you want to throw the first stone, fine. But kindly don't go crying to momma if one gets thrown back.

There is nothing else in this thread that I've argued either for or against. Nor am I in the least bit interested in being drawn into any sectarian debate, because, well, life's too short mate.

Life may be short and pixiedustish when sitting behind your computer, Louis, but life isn't short when you have kids. You seem to forget, or ignore, that what the separatists are doing right now and what they are planning to do in the future do and will deprive my chuildren of their rights as individuals. You seem to ignore that the separatists tried to steal the last election and that would have deprived myself, my French wife, and my children of our rights. Not to mention the millions of French speaking people who would have been deprived of their rights.

I submit, again, that yor personal anger towards me, which you stated was the only reason you are posting in this thread, has blinded you to the realities of the situation. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Who has to pretend, they did. And the rebellions of 1837 in upper and lower Canada weren't oppressed French rising against their English oppressors, as Louis was trying paint it. It was the oppressed masses, English and French, rising against what they say as a crooked, autocratic, and oligarchic colonial administration.

Louis has been trying to manufacture a history of an oppressed Quebec throwing off one shackle after the other, with the last being remaining a part of Canada.

I'm getting a bit tired of people putting entire narratives in my mouth.

Trust me, Lars, I am aware of the motives and different groups of the rebelions of 1837. This being an internet forum, one does not write 3000 word essays. I merely linked to a specific event of 1837 because I had made an offhand reference to.
I also made a reference somewhere about Catalunya. One brief reference does not mean I am trying to 'manufacture a Spanish history' as one of 'opressed Catalunya, pretending the rest of Spain doesn't exist'.

I am not at all writing from a position within some sectarian narrative. Not interested, life's too short.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Beirut - I am not interested in a sectarian debate about who is stripping who's children of their rights when and where and how, with lots of big words and fanatical language. Canada is a democracy and a big place, full of nice people. I shall leave you fine gentlemen to it to discuss who is traitor scum plotting to deprive millions of Canadians of their rights, etc etc

My dear sir, the first personal insult in this thread came from you and was directed at me.

No, not quite. You just did not get the reference of the post. It was a sarcastic reference to two centuries ago, which you mistook throughout the thread to refer to today. When understood properly, the reference is rather a bit more subtle than just some random personal insult. Sarcastic, yes, mild mockery too, as in 'come on, it is not 1837 anymore, one does not do that stuff anymore'.

The sarcasm is that francophone sovereigntists are not burned in a church anymore. That's the very point of it. Not that one thinks they still are.
Although, after reading this thread, I am not so sure about that anymore....

* Note to self: never ever find yourself on the wrong end of English sectarianism. They will not tire in ruining your next three centuries. Or eight. Or forever. *
* Pick the relaxed Balkans instead. *

[Brenus]

“So please tell me; what is it exactly I am supposed to love about them?”
Who ask you to love them?
I have no sympathy for the Basque or Corsican Separatists who want to play their Franjo Tudjman, Alija Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadzic or Mihail Saakashvili.
However, I will not insult them.
The problem is what I read from you put you on the bunch I just mentioned, even if it probably applies to the Ultra Separatists.
That is why I wrote you sounded like Milosevic and his appeal to the Soul of Tito to save the Unity of Yugoslavia against the Separatists (in Kosovo), this before he turned Nationalist.
I am aware of this and try to fight it.
I don’t know why, but I feel a connection with the French Canadians even they are no more French for a long time. But Céline Dion is a renowned French (Canadian) Artist. Nothing rational, I know.
As I mentioned I am in principal against secession and ethnic cleansing when education and democracy give answer to this kind of problem.

“I have not seen the French people as oppressed.” The problem is not what you see, but how they feel. As you probably know, the reality is not important but it how you see it.
Perhaps the French Canadians shouldn’t feel oppressed, but some do. Now, you can deny it and carry on the traitors bunch scum etc, or to accept they have this view. Then try to understand why then discuss with them. It apparently works as they loose every referendum…
It is much better than the army.
From outside and with sympathy for the French Canadians, I can understand some of their resentment about the past. Their ancestors were conquered. The Battle of Abraham Plains is, according to some, is re-enacted every year is a constant reminder of this fact. I would see it as a humiliation, as the Orange March in Ireland.
Now, if you succeed to convince it not but just entertainment and fun, fine.
But I have to say I didn’t like when the British, in their own country, commemorate Trafalgar twice.
So, I can imagine what a French Canadian can feel when this defeat is commemorated just under his window… Every £$&* year.

[Subotan]

From outside and with sympathy for the French Canadians, I can understand some of their resentment about the past. Their ancestors were conquered. The Battle of Abraham Plains is, according to some, is re-enacted every year is a constant reminder of this fact. I would see it as a humiliation, as the Orange March in Ireland.
Now, if you succeed to convince it not but just entertainment and fun, fine.
But I have to say I didn’t like when the British, in their own country, commemorate Trafalgar twice.
So, I can imagine what a French Canadian can feel when this defeat is commemorated just under his window… Every £$&* year.

Oh, boo hoo. That the day when thereafter both French and English speakers shared an intertwined history of Canada as joint settler peoples is commemorated annually makes some French Canadians upset? Cry me a river. The Scots get to mark Bannockburn, Americans re-enact every battle that's ever taken place on their soil ever, and the Russians have a day off on VE Day. It's not as if the French Canadians are subject to something unique, let alone a unique torture.

[Brenus]

“Oh, boo hoo. That the day when thereafter both French and English speakers shared an intertwined history of Canada as joint settler peoples is commemorated annually makes some French Canadians upset? Cry me a river. The Scots get to mark Bannockburn, Americans re-enact every battle that's ever taken place on their soil ever, and the Russians have a day off on VE Day. It's not as if the French Canadians are subject to something unique, let alone a unique torture”:

Do you do this on purpose or don’t you see really the difference?

Re-acting the battle of Abraham Plain is not exactly a “joint settler people” event.
American re-enact a civil war (not a war they lost).
Russians have a VE Day in Moscow, not in Berlin. And every body agree that defeating Nazism was a good thing, even the Germans.
The Scots ended to gain their Independence.

No, the French Canadians are not unique.
The Irish have the Orange March.

So you can cry a river on hypocrisy.
If you want to celebrate or commemorate a “join settlers” history you don’t choose a battle…

[Subotan]

So it's better then to pretend that for the entirety of Canadian history, English and French speakers have skipped hand-in-hand merrily along the path of destiny? Please. That French and English speaking Canadians now live together in harmony is even more valuable when you consider that they used to be at each others' throats as shown in the re-enactment, and it's only the bitter, vindictive and selfish who would use the re-enactment by a bunch of geeks of an event that took place over two hundred years ago to try to make a political point and force divisions between French and English speakers.

American re-enact a civil war (not a war they lost).

Try telling that to the South.

[Beirut]

Beirut - I am not interested in a sectarian debate about who is stripping who's children of their rights when and where and how, with lots of big words and fanatical language. Canada is a democracy and a big place, full of nice people. I shall leave you fine gentlemen to it to discuss who is traitor scum plotting to deprive millions of Canadians of their rights, etc etc

An excellent cop out. You've got about twenty posts in this thread and by your own admission those posts are nothing but an expression of anger towards me, and by your own admission again, devoid of any meaningful or informed opinion on the subject being spoken to.

You spoke before of a desire to avoid fanaticism. You failed. You are unable and unwilling to speak to the issues that are the root cause of why some people use the language they do, you just sit back and spew out dozens of posts that have no meaning at all except to point out that someone used a bad word. Maybe you could have just sent me a PM.

No, not quite. You just did not get the reference of the post. It was a sarcastic reference to two centuries ago, which you mistook throughout the thread to refer to today. When understood properly, the reference is rather a bit more subtle than just some random personal insult. Sarcastic, yes, mild mockery too, as in 'come on, it is not 1837 anymore, one does not do that stuff anymore'.

I got the reference of the post. Like I said, I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. Your intent was to launch a personal insult and you did.

If you want to try and run away from it, that's up to you.

The sarcasm is that francophone sovereigntists are not burned in a church anymore. That's the very point of it. Not that one thinks they still are.
Although, after reading this thread, I am not so sure about that anymore....

Indeed, because by your own admission you are both uninformed on the subject and do not want to speak to the subject; you only want to express your anger with me for using language you did not like.

While language may be important, focussing on the language to the exclusion of the subject makes for meaningless banter. By your logic, any crime is excusable if the person subject to the crime used a bad word when referring to the criminal. That's pretty empty.

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK, I think everyone has said their piece on Quebec and the diversion is spent.

Let's return to the original topic of Canada's 2011 election.

Thank you kindly.

[Beirut]

Another Conservative minority.

Harper will get thrown out by his party, later than sooner, because minority government wins do not guarantee job security. And Harper's autocratic style has P.O.d many in his party. He'll be gone before the end of his mandate.

Put Peter Mackay up for Harper's job, move the party just a few inches to the left, make a hardcore commitment to national healthcare, and the Conservatives would blast into a majority.

Iggy will get tossed. This is his one chance at bat and it's either a home run or unemployment. It's going to be unemployment.

Layton will stay because he is good.

Duceppe will stay because he is bad.

[lars573]

Rex Murphy was of the opinion that all the party leaders will be gone if things stay as they are.

[Beirut]

Rex Murphy was of the opinion that all the party leaders will be gone if things stay as they are.

I'd vote for Rex Murphy as PM. This country needs a swift kick of Newfie's boot.

What would you think of Mackay if he leaned in the direction I mentioned in my last post?

[Jaguara]

Rex Murphy was of the opinion that all the party leaders will be gone if things stay as they are.

I don't think Duceppe is going anywhere. Who realistically can replace him? If he goes, it will likely be to head up the PQ...in which case they might actually have a chance to defeat Charest's Liberals (who are really conservatives...). Rex Murphy has never had a clue about Quebec, if I could count the predictions he made about here and that were proven wrong, I would be able to afford a Lotto Max ticket for Friday ($5 a ticket, come on!). I still remember that he was one of the ones predicting that Charest's Conservatives would win a majority based on their sweeping Quebec and ending the Bloc once and for all...in the end the Bloc only lost a couple of seats...hardly a rout.

Layton, well, who cares? The NDP are not going anywhere. If the Greens had been allowed in these debates, and as long as the $2 per vote subsidy exists (thus cutting down on strategic voting), then they would continue to grow and cut a swath out of the NDP. Best they can hop for is to gain enough support to eventually force a merger with the Liberals, but as they are, they will never form a government. And as to saying Layton is good? He had a few good lines in the debate, but he couldn't deliver them with a straight face...

Elizabeth May? I have no idea what is going on with the Greens ever since the media decided to muffle them.

I do agree though, that both Ignatieff and Harper will be gone if the Big-C's win another minority. Iggy did OK in the debate, but only because the others were not great either. I expected more from an academic, to be honest. I think Iggy was particularly daft in burning the coalition bridge. They really could have pushed for legitimacy of a coalition. Harper's "the party that got the most seats won the election" perspective is flawed, if a coalition represents more Canadians, then they have more legitimacy than an endless cycle of minorities that refuse to work with the other parties.

[Jaguara]

I'd vote for Rex Murphy as PM. This country needs a swift kick of Newfie's boot.

What would you think of Mackay if he leaned in the direction I mentioned in my last post?

I'll pass on Rex Murphy, but at least he has one thing that these others do not...passion (Well, with an exception of Duceppe).

We haven't seen a real leader in the big-3 federal parties in ages. MacKay could work for the Conservatives...he is well spoken, is at least reasonably intelligent, kept his dignity, and is not a nutbar. Another possibility is Rick Hillier...I hear there is quite a movement for him to run.

The Liberals had so much to pick from, but Paul Martin's divisiveness turned quite a few of them off. Frank MacKenna, Brian Tobin, Bob Rae (some people like him...) and a bunch of others...in a few years Justin Trudeau might have a crack at it. Are there still rumours of Romeo Dallaire?

[Beirut]

I'll pass on Rex Murphy, but at least he has one thing that these others do not...passion (Well, with an exception of Duceppe).

I like Rex. If not for PM, then certainly as his speech writer.

We haven't seen a real leader in the big-3 federal parties in ages. MacKay could work for the Conservatives...he is well spoken, is at least reasonably intelligent, kept his dignity, and is not a nutbar. Another possibility is Rick Hillier...I hear there is quite a movement for him to run.

I like Mackay, too. He seems smart enough. And to be honest, I've had a soft spot for him ever since he did that interview in his garden after getting dumped by Belinda. Standing there in rubber boots, holding a shovel, all sad, talking about getting his heart broken. He looked like a real honest to God human being.

Haven't heardabout Rick Hillier. Certainly a good guy, but if he was going to run for the PCs I'd want some cast iron guarantees about his platform before I would consider him.

The Liberals had so much to pick from, but Paul Martin's divisiveness turned quite a few of them off. Frank MacKenna, Brian Tobin, Bob Rae (some people like him...) and a bunch of others...in a few years Justin Trudeau might have a crack at it. Are there still rumours of Romeo Dallaire?

Justin Trudeau won't be PM material for years, if ever. Too snide, too young, and far too Trudeau-esque for Quebec. The separatists, and the French media in general, would paint him as Satan incarnate and worse.

Romeo Dailare? Another great guy, certainly smart enough. Unfortunetaly, I don't think a lot of Canadians will get past the "park bench affair", and will question his stability. God knows the man earned his breakdown (if it was that and not just a bad night), he earned ten of them, but that mental image might make people hesitate.

[Beirut]

I don't think Duceppe is going anywhere. Who realistically can replace him? If he goes, it will likely be to head up the PQ...in which case they might actually have a chance to defeat Charest's Liberals (who are really conservatives...). Rex Murphy has never had a clue about Quebec, if I could count the predictions he made about here and that were proven wrong, I would be able to afford a Lotto Max ticket for Friday ($5 a ticket, come on!). I still remember that he was one of the ones predicting that Charest's Conservatives would win a majority based on their sweeping Quebec and ending the Bloc once and for all...in the end the Bloc only lost a couple of seats...hardly a rout.

I don't think Duceppe will go to the PQ. The PQ eats its leaders like spiders eat their young. And the chewing is slow and nasty. If he stays where is he has job security and a fat federal pension and lots of perks. All he has to do is show up and whine like a baby and he's good for another dozen terms.

Layton, well, who cares? The NDP are not going anywhere. If the Greens had been allowed in these debates, and as long as the $2 per vote subsidy exists (thus cutting down on strategic voting), then they would continue to grow and cut a swath out of the NDP. Best they can hop for is to gain enough support to eventually force a merger with the Liberals, but as they are, they will never form a government. And as to saying Layton is good? He had a few good lines in the debate, but he couldn't deliver them with a straight face...

Is it $2 or just $1 per vote?

I think Jack is good for the country. Maybe not as PM, but certainly as someone to thrash the PM in Parliament.

Elizabeth May? I have no idea what is going on with the Greens ever since the media decided to muffle them.

I like Elizabeth. Mostly because she scares the living out of all the other leaders. Had she been at the debate she would have destroyed them. She would have asked questions none of the others would have dared ask, much less answer.She is an excellent speaker and smart as hell.

I do agree though, that both Ignatieff and Harper will be gone if the Big-C's win another minority. Iggy did OK in the debate, but only because the others were not great either. I expected more from an academic, to be honest. I think Iggy was particularly daft in burning the coalition bridge. They really could have pushed for legitimacy of a coalition. Harper's "the party that got the most seats won the election" perspective is flawed, if a coalition represents more Canadians, then they have more legitimacy than an endless cycle of minorities that refuse to work with the other parties.

I think if they pushed a coalition they would have looked at weak as they are, and showing weakness is bad in politics. I think Iggy was, and still is, looking for a scandal to blow the doors off Harper. Until it's guaranteed that won't happen, he won't talk about a coalition.

[Jaguara]

[QUOTE=Beirut;2053295252]I don't think Duceppe will go to the PQ. The PQ eats its leaders like spiders eat their young. And the chewing is slow and nasty. If he stays where is he has job security and a fat federal pension and lots of perks. All he has to do is show up and whine like a baby and he's good for another dozen terms.[QUOTE]

I don't think so either. I also think that he is too effective where he is. I have said before that I think he is the more effective of the 3 opposition leaders (May could chnage that, but she has to get a seat first...Gah!). I was responding to the point quoted from Rex Murphy that all leaders would lose their "jobs". I don't think he will be asked to leave unless he chooses to leave...and the only circumstances I could see for that would be to go to the PQ (as they asked him to do for the last Provincial election).

[QUOTE=Beirut;2053295252]Is it $2 or just $1 per vote?[QUOTE]

Last I heard was $2/Year/Vote. Not that much really, and a lifeline to the smaller parties...most significantly the Greens. Lets face it, the Conservatives want to scrap it because they know they are best able to replace it with corporate funding. The Liberals would be fine as well. The Bloc will always have it's core of supporters including the unions. The NDP is a bit weaker, having to rely more on individuals and unions...but the Greens? The Greens would be badly hurt by the revoking of these funds. I don't see why any people agree with Harper on this. It is a miniscule amount in the budget, and isn't your vote worth a couple of dollars of your taxes?

Ironically, if the Conservatives get their minority or majority, and they scrap this, all that will do is bring back strategic voting. Right now people are voting Green and NDP because they know it is at least giving them a bit of funding...it counts for something, even if they don't have a chance of winning a seat.

In my riding, it is between the Bloc and the Liberals. The other parties have no chance...not even close. If the subsidy is cut, then those people are more likely to vote strategically - Federalist Conservatives voting Liberal to keep the Bloc out, etc. Ironically, this plays into the hands of the Liberals more than anyone else.

http://greenparty.ca/blogs/16981/201...arms-democracy

Oops, I was wrong, not $2...it is $1.95

[QUOTE=Beirut;2053295252]I think Jack is good for the country. Maybe not as PM, but certainly as someone to thrash the PM in Parliament.

I like Elizabeth. Mostly because she scares the living out of all the other leaders. Had she been at the debate she would have destroyed them. She would have asked questions none of the others would have dared ask, much less answer.She is an excellent speaker and smart as hell.[QUOTE]

I was a bit harsh before. That said, I can't take him seriously. They know they can't get elected and their platform often reflects this. He is sort of like the innocent kid in a streetfight. I think Duceppe does a good job of thrashing the PM, and frankly I would rather see the Greens in parliament for the good of Canada.

The Greens have something to add, the NDP message, their "raison d'etre" is old, tired, and not terribly relevant. They have more and more trouble differentiating themselves between the Liberals on one side and the Greens on the other. When they were founded, they had a mission, now they are floundering around trying to redefine themselves. Like it or not, the socialist movement in Canada is not going anywhere right now, and (outside Quebec) the union movement gets weaker by the day. I say, get over it and form the New Green Democrats or something. I think if May had been let into the debates, she would have gained more ground on the NDP again...perhaps a lot of ground...their growth has been amazing. In fact, they would have stood a chance to win a couple of seats. As it is I just cannot predict...Will it be out of sight, out of mind? Pity really.

I think if they pushed a coalition they would have looked at weak as they are, and showing weakness is bad in politics. I think Iggy was, and still is, looking for a scandal to blow the doors off Harper. Until it's guaranteed that won't happen, he won't talk about a coalition.

True, and I am sure that is why they didn't. Still he took a hard line against it...he didn't even leave the door open as a last resort.

As for scandal? They have the mother of all scandals and the fools can't figure out how to show it to the public. The sponsorship thing was small-potatoes (typical Political corruption). This government has been found in contempt of Parliament by the speaker of the house on two counts (first time in history). This government which came to power on accountability, has been the most secretive and controlling government since before my time...and has exercised unbelievable levels of political interference in the burocracy. The G8 funding thing looks like it will be as bad as the sponsorship scandal was - or worse. They have refused to work with the other parties, bullied the provinces (especially the East coast - Reference Danny Williams vs Harper), and abused their power. In Ottawa, the MP John Baird has used his cabinet post to interfere with not just provincial politics but municipal politics as well.

With all of this, if Iggy cannot boot them out, then it wasn't Harper that beat him...it was he who beat himself.

[Beirut]

[QUOTE=Jaguara;2053295383]

With all of this, if Iggy cannot boot them out, then it wasn't Harper that beat him...it was he who beat himself.

I'm with you on every point, I think.

If nothing else, Iggy & The Liberals (a punk band or a band of punks?) have shown mind-boggling ineptitude in not crucifying Harper for being a world-class shmuck.

In my riding it's a Liberal bozo against a BQ swinedog and the swinedog is almost guaranteed to get in again. The guy doesn't even need to campaign, all he needs is "BQ" on the ballot to win. That means another couple of years of separatist "Why Canada sucks!" junk mail in my post office box sent out by my Canadian federal MP. Gah!

[lars573]

I'd vote for Rex Murphy as PM. This country needs a swift kick of Newfie's boot.

The Newfie you want as PM is Danny Williams. That guy is crazy and he doesn't care what you think. When I think of Rex Murphy in politics I get am image of a him up at a pulpit ranting like Castro/Mussolini/Hitler/Chavez. But one advantage he'd have it being able to throw those crazy eyes at people.

What would you think of Mackay if he leaned in the direction I mentioned in my last post?

I might trust him more than I would Harper or any of the Reform-Alliance whacko's. He doesn't come off like some Neo-Con demagogue like Harper does. I get this not from his highly scripted TV interviews or public speeches. But from his appearance on CBC'c "Making Politicians Work."

[Jaguara]

I'm with you on every point, I think.

COOL!

That means another couple of years of separatist "Why Canada sucks!" junk mail in my post office box sent out by my Canadian federal MP. Gah!

Want to trade? You send me that stuff, and I'll send you all of the Liberal stuff I get!
(It isn't any more interesting, but at least it is from a different perspective.)

[Jaguara]

The Newfie you want as PM is Danny Williams.

I mentioned Danny Williams a couple of times above. Unfortunately I think he is done with politics, that nonsense with Harper pretty much burned him out. He fought for Newfoundland with everything he had, and as such I have a lot of respect for him.