26-06-2004 21:39									#451
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Flinx - Wow! That was a lot of work. Out of curiousity.... who is the BC independant you predict? (Or anyone else with the answer....)

Looks like you got my area of Ont. pegged pretty good. Libs should hold Kingston but will likely lose this riding (Hastings - Lyle Vancliefs old riding).

	27-06-2004 01:42									#452
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Flinx A majority for the Conservatives would require them to win around 90 of the 106 ridings in Ontario. All the recent polls indicate the Liberals are in the lead in Ontario and take about 50 of the ridings.

... IF Liberal voters go out and vote AND those who might normally skip it aren't so po'ed that they don't go to the polls to turf the Liberals.

	27-06-2004 01:46									#453
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Out of curiousity.... who is the BC independant you predict? (Or anyone else with the answer....)

Chuck Cadman in Surrey North. Popular former Reform/Alliance MP who lost the Conservative nomination.

	27-06-2004 01:49									#454
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I'm glad I'm not a conservative because you guys have some difficult choices to make. If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority then they will probably make an alliance with the BQ. So a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the BQ. Do you want the Seperatists as part of the government?

That's an interesting twist considering that Harper has categorically shut down any talk of close cooperation with the Bloc.

quote: Then there's the Conservative fiscal policy. Harper is obviously not a fiscal conservative. He wants bigger government, not smaller government. His government will interfere more in people's lives.

You must be reading about stopping the growth of government and respect for provincial jurisdictions and support for provinces to run things the way they see fit in a very interesting light.

quote: Right wing voters definitely have some hard decisions to make.

No actually, the decision is getting easier with each passing day.

	27-06-2004 01:56									#455
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by joncha Chuck Cadman in Surrey North. Popular former Reform/Alliance MP who lost the Conservative nomination.

Doh!

Thanks Joncha. The name was rattling around my brain refusing to be pinned down.

I saw a bit on Cadman and his fight for that riding. I wasn't aware his support was still that solid and wide.

	27-06-2004 04:00									#456
	Tired of ads?

What I heard was that the riding association wanted Cadman but the person that won sold a lot of memberships and managed to get the nomination. Expect Cadman to rejoin the Conservative Party if elected.

	27-06-2004 07:48									#457
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: what the West is on about with Senate reform? One person equals one vote and no rigging for regions is not representative of the nation? Are you a closet Central Canadian?

Did I say I approved of the PC methods?

	27-06-2004 07:50									#458
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: No actually, the decision is getting easier with each passing day.

Actually, he's right, for some of us.

I still haven't decided who I'm voting for. The conservative in Vancouver South hasn't done much for the last month, even with Dosanjh in his riding.

	27-06-2004 09:26									#459
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither That's an interesting twist considering that Harper has categorically shut down any talk of close cooperation with the Bloc.

We know he's lying about that. If the Conservatives get enough seats to form a minority government, who would be their partners? Forget about the NDP. They have nothing in common. The Liberals? Possible, but then a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the Liberals.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You must be reading about stopping the growth of government and respect for provincial jurisdictions and support for provinces to run things the way they see fit in a very interesting light.

Transferring power from one government to another doesn't stop the growth of government. It will create more bureaucracy as all the provinces do what one government used to do.

Then's there's all the constitutional battles that Harper wants so that the government can interfere in our lives.

They'll be interfering in Asher's life, telling him who he can or cannot marry.

And look at all the money Harper wants to spend, and the tax cuts. A Conservative government would mean a massive increase in the deficit. That's got to bug you IF you're a fiscal conservative.

	27-06-2004 10:35									#460
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Ian Welsh: I came into the election as an ex-member of the now dead Progressive Conservative Party(PC). I attended the Conservative Toronto Center nomination meeting (though as a non-member I didn't vote.) My father is a long time Conservative of the Reform stripe and I have defended the Reform Party and the Alliance in the past. In short, I started off favouring the Conservatives and expecting to vote for them. Moreover I grew up in B.C. I'm sensitive to the very real slights and injuries that the West has endured at the hands of successive governments - issues such forcing oil to be sold at below market prices; giving bids to Quebec companies that were underbid by western companies; and allowing west coast fish to be sold before processing. I think Western alienation is entirely justified on the facts. Like many Canadians I was disgusted by Liberal corruption. I've been talking about it for years - although the sheer brazenness of AdScam was something of a shock, the actual corruption wasn't. I knew there was a sense of entitlement amongst certain members of the party - a complacency born of too many years in power and too much assurance of continued power - a feeling that they were our rulers, not our servants and that it was their money, not ours. So I wanted to kick them out. This isn't a reflection on Paul Martin personally - it's a matter of the party as a whole being too complacent. A one party state is inherently unhealthy and a few years in the wilderness with much rending of hair would be good for the Liberals - and for Canada. But there is a price I'm not willing to pay for the privilege of punishing the Liberals... My initial twinges came during my first look at the Conservative platform (or rather at the first, basically accurate leak of the Conservative platform.) The fiscal part of the platform made me very, very uneasy. A 25% tax cut. Now everyone likes paying less in taxes, but I remember the pain of wrestling the debt under control. Still - I wasn't sure and I gave them the benefit of the doubt. But last weekend I spent fifteen hours pouring over the federal debt, revenue and expense numbers and what I learned made my feeling that we couldn't afford Conservative party fiscal policies turn into iron hard certainty - because we balanced the budget primarily through increased revenues. Bottom line: we can't afford Harper's tax cuts combined with his promises of increased spending. Odds are that he will either have to take the axe to signifcant amounts of spending, or he will have to run deficits. Without knowing what he intends to cut (the Conservatives think they can hold spending down much more than most independent economists think they can) or if he'll run deficits I'm not willing to take a gamble on his irresponsbile fiscal program. I don't say "irresponsible" lightly, I say it with due consideration. It's simply not a plan that leaves any room for anything to go wrong. Now Harper has muttered recently that it might be phased in, etc... but that doesn't reassure me. The plan is inherently unrealistic and that means he put out, as part of his policy platform, something he either knew he couldn't deliver on, or something he intends to delivery on in ways that are unacceptable to me as a real fiscal conservative. Then there is Harper's agenda of radical parliamentary change. Let's put it all together. First there are free votes on everything except fiscal issues. Second there is the inability of party Leaders to appoint candidates to local ridings. Third there are elected Senators. If Harper actually comes through on all three of these issues we're looking at radical change. There are consequences to changing institutions and they aren't always what people think they are. It is my considered opinion that the combination of the three changes that Harper wants to put in will lead to an extreme weakening of party discipline and ability to move measures through parliament. Freed of the ability of Party Leaders to get rid of them without losing an MP, MPs will be freer to vote as they choose. Sounds good, eh? What it means is that party platforms matter much less - and individual beliefs of MPs matter much more. Add in free votes and that freedom becomes even greater. But it's not just a matter of belief - it's a matter of trading. If most votes are free and you're an MP suddenly you have something of value to trade, your vote. And most will use it, giving it away on issues they care less about for support on issues they care more about. Then, adding in the fact that the Conservatives will allow many more private members bills to come to a vote - with enough trading, who knows what might get through? Don't think it will happen? Go look at the process for bills in the US and get back to me. And while you're at it, note especially how beholden US reps are to special interests. Because with MPs suddenly so much more powerful they're going to be worth more. Having an MP in pocket who can vote as he chooses, who can present bills and who has a vote that he can trade to others is worth something. Moreover the way people vote will change. Because MPs are more powerful people will vote more for them and less for their party. Spending in local ridings will become much more important than it is today, where most candidates fly in on their party's wings. That money will come from those who can afford to give it. Which is to say, people with more disposable income will have more clout with your MP than those who don't. That's already true, of course, but degree matters. Get ready for that degree to be ramped up exponentially. Then there are elected Senators. The Senate has a lot more power than most people realize. It can send back pretty much any bill it chooses. It doesn't so choose these days because the Senators aren't elected. Elected Senators are going to feel that they have a mandate - and they will be right. They will feel that they have a right and a duty to send bills back which they don't agree with. Good thing? Maybe, except that it adds one more level of horse trading to the entire mess and reduces the ability of the government to govern. Maybe you think that's good, that a government unable to act quickly unless there is overwhelming support for an issue, is a good government. And I won't argue that there aren't advantages, but be sure that the corruption, horse trading, increased influence of those with money and inability to set a clear policy easily that we will give up are worth what we're getting in return. The bottom line of Harper's structural changes are that they fix a problem (the electated dicator that is the PM) by creating a series of other problems with far reaching consequences. What we need is not a radical solution, but an incremental move back towards a sitaution more akin to how the British Parliament operates - less discipline and more accountability, but not so little that we are electing an individual representative to wrestle with other individual representatives on our behalf, rather than the current situation where we elect a government. Or to put it another way, we need reform, but do we need radical reform? There are good things about a possible Conservative government; a significant voice for the West in Ottawa, something which has been sadly lacking, greater oversight of government spending; more respect for provinces; more money for the armed forces; and teaching the Liberals a lesson. But I'm not willing to vote Conservative purely as a way to punish the Liberals if doing so means hurting Canada and Canadians. I'm not willing to overlook the irresponsible fiscal policies and radical change that the Conservatives want just because there are a few things they want to do which I agree with. And that, in sum, is why I won't be voting Conservative. I haven't decided whether I can overcome my distaste for the corruption of some Liberals enough to vote for them, or my distaste for certain aspects of the NDP party to vote for them. But when it comes time to cast my vote, it isn't going next to my local Conservative's name, as much as I think she'd be a good MP. Because I don't believe in radical parliamentary change and I don't believe in irresponsible tax cuts and I'm not lending my vote or name to either.

Hmm.

	27-06-2004 10:58									#461
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Based on Flinx's expert analysis, I will somewhat cautiously proclaim that the NDP will get 63 seats and that the Conservatives will get 59 seats.

	27-06-2004 11:15									#463
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, only the first one or two. I am voting Conservative though. I'm tired of the Liberals and all of their scandals. Go Harper.

	27-06-2004 12:09									#464
	Remove this text

Then you're voting for irresponsible fiscal policies that will create a massive deficit.

	27-06-2004 12:56									#465
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Did I say I approved of the PC methods?

And? The PCs set the process to assure that PCs from PEI are not swamped by those from Ontario or the West.

That is exactly what Reform demanded in the Senate. Don't you think that regions need representation beyond their pop anymore?

If it's good enough for the Senate, isn't it good enough for the major parties?

	27-06-2004 13:24									#466
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai We know he's lying about that. If the Conservatives get enough seats to form a minority government, who would be their partners? Forget about the NDP. They have nothing in common. The Liberals? Possible, but then a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the Liberals.

You should say that you know. I would then observe that you know some pretty strange things.

btw, from which party did the last guy come from who said he would govern as if he had a majority? I think that's what Harper will do. He may be right that the Liberals won't want to go anywhere near the polls for a bit, in which case he will live for 18 to 24 months. Or he may be wrong and then we will be voting again before Christmas.

I wouldn't want to bet the Liberals want to risk it for a long while once the judicial enquiry gets under way.

Of course, that assumes that Martin will cede power. The answers he has given lately indicate to me that he is keeping the door open to staying on as PM even with fewer seats than the Conservatives.

quote: Transferring power from one government to another doesn't stop the growth of government. It will create more bureaucracy as all the provinces do what one government used to do.

Transferring has jack to do with it. It's called respecting the division of power as it already exists.

Case in point, municipal finance. Municipalities are creatures of the provinces. Martin says he's gonna fix the big cities right up... too bad that the provinces have a large say in the matter. Harper is in favour of helping the cities out too, but doing it in cooperation with the provinces.

Since when is recognising facts a transfer of powers?

quote: Then's there's all the constitutional battles that Harper wants so that the government can interfere in our lives.

You mean like the gun registry?

quote: They'll be interfering in Asher's life, telling him who he can or cannot marry.

They'll be having a free vote in Parliament on a new definition of marriage. Why are you and Martin so afraid of Parliament?

Most likely anything restrictive will be voted down. Go anywhere near 'notwithstanding' and you assure many Tories to vote 'nay'. No way in hell would that pass, even in a majority if Harper sticks to the promise that the whips will be chained.

quote: And look at all the money Harper wants to spend, and the tax cuts. A Conservative government would mean a massive increase in the deficit. That's got to bug you IF you're a fiscal conservative.

Funny, I've read that the various platforms come in at $40, $50, $80 billion range. Nobody was way out of line as of that point a couple weeks ago.

Fact is Harper wants to spend less than the others, and he wants to cut taxes if there is enough slack left to allow it.

btw, one of the three major leaders is a trained economist. Guess which one.

	27-06-2004 13:32									#467
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I should say that I liked Martin, and I appreciate a lot of the things that went right while he was finance minister and had some say in Cabinet. We have among the best, if not the best, performing economies in the G7 (or 8, or 12, or what have you).

Problem is that the Lberals have been in too long, and the problems that come from that are already slapping us in the face.

I waited and I watched to see if Martin deserved a chance despite the problems with his party. First he started to fudge on the Sponsorship scandal, and then he is treating us to a campaign that is worthy of any major league Liberal slut for power.

I was going to vote Green, but now I feel I need to send a message. Martin is the same **** in a different pile. Time for a change.

	28-06-2004 01:19									#468
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I convinced my mother to vote NDP.

The world must be coming to an end.

	28-06-2004 01:20									#469
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

One day left.

WUTANG

	28-06-2004 01:54									#470
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The Election Prediction Project just made their final seat projection:

code:

Lib       122
Con       104
NDP        29
BQ         52
Ind         1

	28-06-2004 01:59									#471
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

*gets out the popcorn and sits back to watch*

I love foreign elections. It's all the drama, none of the living under the oppressive brutal regime that follows.

	28-06-2004 08:46									#472
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You should say that you know. I would then observe that you know some pretty strange things.

What? You think it is strange to say the NDP and Cons have nothing in common?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither He may be right that the Liberals won't want to go anywhere near the polls for a bit, in which case he will live for 18 to 24 months. Or he may be wrong and then we will be voting again before Christmas.

No one wants to go anywhere near the polls. All the parties will need to refill their election war chests.

If it is Cons minority government, it will collapse in March. The Cons will screw things up like they always do.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Of course, that assumes that Martin will cede power. The answers he has given lately indicate to me that he is keeping the door open to staying on as PM even with fewer seats than the Conservatives.

What planet are you living on?

Martin said "It's a common sense proposition that the party that has the most seats is the party that certainly ought to form a government."

What part of this do you not understand?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Transferring has jack to do with it. It's called respecting the division of power as it already exists.

Common sense should tell you that if 10 governments do what one government once did, then the bureacracy will increase.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither They'll be having a free vote in Parliament on a new definition of marriage.

Which is Harper's standard cop-out. He doesn't have the guts to stand up and say what the Cons will do.

And if you ask the individual Cons candidates how they would vote, they refuse to say.

The Cons are trying to hide the truth.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Most likely anything restrictive will be voted down. Go anywhere near 'notwithstanding' and you assure many Tories to vote 'nay'. No way in hell would that pass, even in a majority if Harper sticks to the promise that the whips will be chained.

You don't actually believe that do you? Harper already has the Cons candidates whipped, chained and muzzled. If he keeps them on a tight leash during an election, do you really think he's going to give them freedom to vote if they get elected.

You're not the naive are you?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Fact is Harper wants to spend less than the others, and he wants to cut taxes if there is enough slack left to allow it. btw, one of the three major leaders is a trained economist. Guess which one.

What? Have you been paying any attention to this election. The Conservative are promising to spend more and to cut more taxes. The result is a massive deficit or cuts to essential services.

Well, I'm a trained economist and that hasn't stopped you from ignoring my words of wisdom.

	28-06-2004 11:11									#473
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai What? You think it is strange to say the NDP and Cons have nothing in common?

You're jumping from Harper having nothing in common with the NDP or Liberals (I don't buy that, but you're free to be a zealot) to he would be willing to give seperatists a larger voice in national government. There is a third way, as I pointed out.

quote: No one wants to go anywhere near the polls. All the parties will need to refill their election war chests. If it is Cons minority government, it will collapse in March. The Cons will screw things up like they always do.

Yes, most minorities do not go the distance, and Conservatives have been shorter than most in recent memory. However, the past is not an iron clad assurance of the future. I agree it is likely to be voting again soon, but let's wait and see.

quote: What planet are you living on? Martin said "It's a common sense proposition that the party that has the most seats is the party that certainly ought to form a government." What part of this do you not understand?

I'm living on the planet that watched him get grilled on the topic and never say 'yes, I will resign as PM if I get fewer seats'. He said everything but that, and then he mentioned 'support in Parliament' (not restricted to his own party's seats). What planet are you living on? What part of a politician being evasive do you not understand?

quote: Common sense should tell you that if 10 governments do what one government once did, then the bureacracy will increase.

The history of Canada should tell you that the 10 provinces have had jurisdiction over things like health and cities since, ohh, about 1867. Where is this 'one government once did' of which you speak? You should really check into those fact thingies, they are a fascinating subject.

quote: Which is Harper's standard cop-out. He doesn't have the guts to stand up and say what the Cons will do. And if you ask the individual Cons candidates how they would vote, they refuse to say. The Cons are trying to hide the truth.

Well, quite a few seem willing to say what they feel about the big button issues, don't you think? What do the Liberals say? What about the NDP? Is ducking out of the Commons when such an issue comes up for a vote OK?

And since when is putting power back into the hands of MPs and Parliament a bad thing? You see it as a cop out. I see it as what he has been shooting for all the time he has been in politics.

quote: You don't actually believe that do you? Harper already has the Cons candidates whipped, chained and muzzled. If he keeps them on a tight leash during an election, do you really think he's going to give them freedom to vote if they get elected. You're not the naive are you?

Less naive than you. During an election what one person says can be amplified a hundred fold, especially when the media are on a witch hunt. btw, how do you explain the Liberal and NDP candidates being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage being largely ignored while the press and the opponents never cease to harp on the personal convictions of the candidates of one party in particular?

How stupid and partisan are you?

quote: What? Have you been paying any attention to this election. The Conservative are promising to spend more and to cut more taxes. The result is a massive deficit or cuts to essential services. Well, I'm a trained economist and that hasn't stopped you from ignoring my words of wisdom.

Yes... wisdom... heh, good joke.

Do you have any reputable report putting the Conservative platform at a higher cost than that of the NDP?

	28-06-2004 12:08									#474
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You're jumping from Harper having nothing in common with the NDP or Liberals (I don't buy that, but you're free to be a zealot) to he would be willing to give seperatists a larger voice in national government. There is a third way, as I pointed out.

Third way? AFAIK, the first thing a minority government has to survive is a vote of confidence.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I'm living on the planet that watched him get grilled on the topic and never say 'yes, I will resign as PM if I get fewer seats'. He said everything but that, and then he mentioned 'support in Parliament' (not restricted to his own party's seats). What planet are you living on? What part of a politician being evasive do you not understand?

No politican is going to say "I will resign" in the middle of a campaign. No politican is going to say anything that sounds like he has given up.

He was quite in what he said: Party with the most seats should form the government.

What more does he have to say.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither The history of Canada should tell you that the 10 provinces have had jurisdiction over things like health and cities since, ohh, about 1867.

Open a history book and you will see that certain health care policies are set at a national level in order to create equality for all Canadians.

I know you have trouble dealing with the facts, and I know you prefer to say screw the East, but most Canadians believe in equal access to health care.

Harper does not.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, quite a few seem willing to say what they feel about the big button issues, don't you think?

The Conservatives have themselves to blame for that. Harper is constantly avoiding the questions and refusing to take a position, so yes, when the rare Cons candidate escapes and says what he thinks, then it is news.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither During an election what one person says can be amplified a hundred fold, especially when the media are on a witch hunt. btw, how do you explain the Liberal and NDP candidates being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage being largely ignored while the press and the opponents never cease to harp on the personal convictions of the candidates of one party in particular?

Because Harper is being evasive. The Cons hide behind a smokescreen of "free" votes and then refuse to say how they would vote.

Why has Harper refused to say "The majority of our candidates believe..."? Because he's trying to deceive the voters. He wants to pretend he's in favour of gay marriages and against gay marriages at the same time.

The NDP have clearly stated where they stand on abortion and equal rights. When an NDP candidate stands up and says she supports the party position, that ain't news.

I know you love looking for Eastern Liberal Media conspiracies, but they don't exist. The Cons have been their worst enemy.

	28-06-2004 12:55									#475
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Third way? AFAIK, the first thing a minority government has to survive is a vote of confidence.

And you said he was lying when he said he would not cooperate with the Bloc to survive one. Do you have anything other than hot air to back that up?

quote: No politican is going to say "I will resign" in the middle of a campaign. No politican is going to say anything that sounds like he has given up. He was quite in what he said: Party with the most seats should form the government. What more does he have to say.

Only he never said that. He never said the party with the most seats wins. He actually alluded to 'support in Parliament'.

btw, that is his right by the rules, even if we don't like it.

quote: Open a history book and you will see that certain health care policies are set at a national level in order to create equality for all Canadians. I know you have trouble dealing with the facts, and I know you prefer to say screw the East, but most Canadians believe in equal access to health care. Harper does not.

Open a history book, and you will see that health care came from provincial initiatives. Open a law book and you will see that health care delivery is a provincial jurisdiction just as it always has been.

That Harper wants to respect jurisdictions is a good thing, not a bad one. After all, what happened to the last Liberal promise about child care? That's right, it sank when the provinces balked.

What happened the last time we had a national government say '**** Quebec, we're doing it anyway'?

Do you have even the faintest notion that Canada is not Britain or China? The central government is powerless in many spheres. We have very strongly rooted provincial powers, and for good reason.

quote: The Conservatives have themselves to blame for that. Harper is constantly avoiding the questions and refusing to take a position, so yes, when the rare Cons candidate escapes and says what he thinks, then it is news.

Duh, because neither he nor his party have a binding position on the questions?

What part of MPs decide without party discipline do you not understand?

quote: Because Harper is being evasive. The Cons hide behind a smokescreen of "free" votes and then refuse to say how they would vote. Why has Harper refused to say "The majority of our candidates believe..."? Because he's trying to deceive the voters. He wants to pretend he's in favour of gay marriages and against gay marriages at the same time. The NDP have clearly stated where they stand on abortion and equal rights. When an NDP candidate stands up and says she supports the party position, that ain't news. I know you love looking for Eastern Liberal Media conspiracies, but they don't exist. The Cons have been their worst enemy.

Free votes are a smoke screen only to an adherent to the Central Committee system. Only one who wants dicatorship could see them as a shortcoming in any party.

Elect your MPs. Let the MPs look after the issues. That is how the system is supposed to work.

What about when an NDP candidate stands up and says she would leave the House if a vote were held on abortion or marriage definitions? Why isn't that candidate willing to vote 'yah' or 'nay' with the party line and stand by it?

What about Dennis Mills? Liberal cabinet minister and in favour of 'the traditional definition of marriage'? Why aren't people like him in the Liberal party such a big issue?

What happened to that quaint picture of a Liberal screaming at Harper about wanting to restrict people's rights when speaking of abortion after she voted for 'the traditional definition of marriage'? Why is hypocrisy like that not an issue with legs?

I don't have to go looking for a media witch hunt, it's been on display in all its glory for the last 5 weeks.

	28-06-2004 13:20									#476
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Of course now I have to put in the disclaimer, and may I burn in Hell for saying it, but the CBC has had far better coverage of the campaign as it went on than any other source I've seen.

It didn't take long for the impartial gloves to come off at CTV. The Sun chain never tried to claim impartial status. All I've seen from other papers is one side or the other. Never the middle road and the good with the bad.

Son of a ***** if I didn't pinch myself when I saw the CBC as being impartial and delivering the best coverage.

	28-06-2004 13:28									#477
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, the Edmonton Journal was relatively good too. Such is the lot of a Liberal paper in the midst of Tory heaven. It lends to balance if simply to prevent the paper boxes being set on fire.

Harr harr. I joke, I joke.

	28-06-2004 16:15									#478
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

One of the reasons I decided to quit being a journalist is that it doesn't matter what we write. We can quote someone saying "Black is black" and far too many readers will be absolutely convinced that the person said "Black is white".

And then there were the constant complaints that "You're baised against [insert political party name here]". Heard it from the NDP. Heard it from the Liberals. Heard from the PC/Reformers.

The election isn't even over and certain fanatics are already screaming screaming about how the media screwed them. It's BS of course.

Each of the three main political parties had a chance to win a majority, but each one blew it.

The Liberals blew this election by being on the defensive and not playing to Martin's strength: a proven track record of fiscal responsibility.

The Conservatives blew the election with two many crazy promises that didn't add up, and accusing Martin of a child porn supporter didn't help.

The NDP blew it by not really believing they could win. At the start of the campaign, the Liberals were collapsing. That was a golden opportunity for the NDP to position itself as the only viable challenger to the Conservative. The NDP could have taken up the void left by the Liberals, but it didn't seize the day.

The fault is not the media. The media is what it has always been. The fault lies with each political party.

	28-06-2004 16:17									#479
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

NYE: As for your latest response. Haven't got the time or the energy to repeat myself ad nauseam. You obviously can't the concept.

	29-06-2004 05:39									#480
	Tired of ads?

quote: And? The PCs set the process to assure that PCs from PEI are not swamped by those from Ontario or the West. That is exactly what Reform demanded in the Senate. Don't you think that regions need representation beyond their pop anymore? If it's good enough for the Senate, isn't it good enough for the major parties?

I fail to see how this makes me a closet easterner.

The East likes the appointments process since that means the party has a much easier time of controlling the selections.

This appointments process is actually less democratic than a direct election, which is the approach historically favoured by the PCs.

The PCs in PEI are no more swamped than they would be in the Alliance party. They vote for their members via a proper election in that all the members select their riding. Each person gets one vote, and no one vote gets more than the other.

The reason for this is that there are much fewer numbers of people voting for the leadership campaign, then in the general election, so that a small number can have a disproportionate influence. This is why the party in its leadership elections can acheive proper representation through direct election rather than an appointments process.

In the federal election, the numerical supremacy is much easier to assert, thus the need for balance in the terms of regional representation found in the Senate.