Your thoughts on Paul Martin thus far?

[HEyHEY]

Okay, it's not that I'm against him, because I'm not. In fact I think he's done a good job of dispelling the mythes he is a corporate pawn. However, I have a problem with his, and the liberal party's, approach to many things. For instance, the softwod lumber dispute. It's almost as if the liberals are invisible. Do they care? No, because it's mostly a western issue, and Ralph Klein is a dick.
As well, there are other issues that he seems to not even ring in on. But, my largest problem with him, and most of them other Fed pols, is the don't grasp the concept of trading with people besides the US. And it's been kicking my balls for years. "Hands-off Island"? I say, "Hands on" let's share the fucking thing and get in on European trade deals for the love of Jesus.
Bye.

[V. Kid]

1. If he were to get a majority gov't he'd be a corporate pawn.

The reason why he hasn't so far, is presicely because he had to rely on the NDP's support in parliament. In fact his original budget was crafted to gain Conservative support. And since the Conservatives, at that time, didn't think they could win an election, they decided to let it pass. They only turned on Martin when they thought they could win an election, so instead of any desire to implment progressive policies because he believed in them, he decided to bring in a progressive budget because it could keep him alive politically.

I'll give him credit for surviving, even if he did prove that politicians can re-iterate the most cynical feelings amongst the population with his reward to Belinda Stronach (and btw, I think Harper was a complete idiot to let her go, but that's par for the course for him).

But the fact is that he's not the same type of liberal as his daddy. If he had a majority government, he could do whatever he wants. And considering his actions as finance minister, and considering the things he said when it looked like he'd cruise into becoming PM, and then win the next election with a Mulroney '84 (or more) like sweep, I have no confidence in his ability to show that he cares about the common person.

The guy is a complete bore. And a centre-right one at that. There are far better choices out there. Take Ballistic Missle Defence, he was for it before the minority government came along, and it was clearly hugely unpopular in Quebec (including amongst his member). He's the reason that so many transfer payments to the provinces were cut, leading to many current problems in our health care system. And I could name many more.

As for the trade deals thing, yeah theoretically I agree with you. It'd be great if we could diversify our partners, but lets think of this realistically. The US is right there. They're huge. And it takes a lot more effort to ship products over an ocean, then it does to drive across a border. While it'd be smart to make sure that they don't take up more then 50% of our exports, as they're at about 85% now IIRC, I don't know how that'd be physically possible. I suppose that's one thing I don't fault him on, although I do fault the provincial and federal governments for completely failing on the Softwood Lumber thing. If they would've threatened an energy export tax to the US earlier, and maybe even threatened to pull out of NAFTA to avoid that ridiculous clause that Muldooney got us in where we have to sell the US 60% of our Oil production, then maybe we would've solved our trade disputes quicker.

[Bassic]

23. He wouldn't be a corporate pawn, he'd be actively working for them.

Because he is one of them.

[V. Kid]

27. True...

...but so long as he has to rely on the NDP to provide the budget, I think he's doing an okay job.

[Bassic]

28. I agree with that

But I don't think we're going to have a minority governement for very long. Next election might see another one, perhaps even a Tory minority, seeing as how the liberal vote has a chance of being split between the libs and the NDP (or the Bloc in Québec). Next one after that though, will se a majority for someone (probably the Libs).

Then we'll see how he does when he's got free reign.

[Maple]

2. Hard to tell so far

He's been kept rather busy with leftover time-bombs from the Chretien era, and the effort involved in keeping a minority govt afloat.

When he was elected leader he said that he intended to go straight down the middle...neither left nor right, neither spendthrift or hard-hearted, and I think that's why our more simple minded types haven't been able to pigeon hole him, and find it upsetting he's not easily labelled.

So far they've been reduced to pushing minor stuttering...like they did Chretien's facial appearance, and what they perceive as indecisiveness...although like I say, with a minority govt it's not like he can push hard for anything.

Softwood lumber has been going on for 20 years now, so I don't expect any magic solutions. We'll simply have to trade with everyone else and reduce our risk with the Americans. Stupid to put all our eggs in one basket anyway.

We used to trade only with the UK, and now it's the US. We need to spread out more.

Good sign this week...we do $30B a year in trade with China, they're our 2nd largest trade partner now...and it's set to double in 5 years. Enbridge has done a pipeline deal with them as well.

And there's certainly India, Russia and the EU to boost.

Financial statement this fall, and I'm hoping for a push on education and R&D. Then we'll see what damage Gomery does, and hope for the best.

I certainly don't want Harper and the gang in there. We're in a good position right now, and I don't want it wrecked.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. I don't like his hubris

Anyone who covets power so much for so long, and believes it's rightfully his, to the extent that he'll plot and plan to unseat a sitting prime minister from his own party for no other reason except that he wants his job for himself, is not someone I want to have running things.

I'm suspicious of the motives of ambitious people, and I think rightly so.

I'm rather more suspicious of the motives of wealthy, well-connected, ambitious people with investments.

And I am most particularly suspicious of the motives of wealthy, well-connected, ambitious people with investments, who are also second-generation politicians with an axe to griind about Daddy's thwarted prime-ministerial ambitions. On re-reading this paragraph, I realize that I've just described Dubya, sorta.

Now that he's been in office for some time, he's accomplished relatively little except for the equal marriage bill and a somewhat progressive budget. And he wouldn't even have done that if the NDP hadn't held his feet to the fire (it seems that the only time the Liberals bring in risky and progressive social legislation is when they have minority governments shored up by the NDP; it's not their nature to do otherwise) . The Liberal government was, at one point, talking about deferring the marriage vote and leaving gays hung out to dry, and if it hadn't passed, I don't think he would have lost a night's sleep over it.

This is not to disparage his bona fides as a Liberal, just as a liberal. And I have to admit he's an exponentially better choice for Prime Minister than Stephen Ole F'tan-F'tang Biscuit-Box Harper of the Silly Party of Canada.

[Maple]

4. Well you can't be in politics

if you don't have an ego, and ambition.

And wealthy people are the only ones that can spend all the years climbing through the ranks, and also knowing how to get things done around the world.

Who would you elect...? Yer average Joe who's never done anything?

Our PM has to lead a G8 nation in a globalizing world, and hold the second largest country in it together at the same time.

Not an easy job.

And in any case, I don't see any other possibilities at the moment, do you? We only have 2 choices.

I don't even see a replacement for Harper on the horizon...or at least not one any more effective than he is.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. I'd much rather see Lloyd Axworthy as prime minister

The fact that he has more or less abandoned any political aspirations and would likely have to be drafted to serve makes him attractive to me. He's dedicated to human rights, has served ably in cabinet, would talk truth to the US government, and belongs to the correct wing of the Liberal Party.

And yeah, otherwise, I would prefer an average Joe who understands what it's like not to grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth, but an intellectual average Joe. If we could only find a Trudeau that grew up poor, we'd be set.

Oh, yeah, and scrupulously honest, too. He or she has to be absolutely forthright and above reproach in dealing with others.

I don't ask much, really.

EDITED TO ADD: And when I come to think of it, I'm glad of my association with David Orchard. He's got an overriding level of decency that would probably prevent it, but I think he'd make a corking good PM.

[Maple]

7. I absolutely don't want

an 'intellectually average Joe' running my country.

Trudeau was a lawyer and a professor.

Lloyd Axworthy doesn't have much support as far as I know. McKenna probably would. But I believe it's a francophone's turn next.

Dion perhaps.

Orchard, however, has even less support. Doesn't even have a party in fact.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. I didn't say "an intellectually average Joe".

I said "an intellectual average Joe", that is to say, someone who is an intellectual, yet from humble beginnings.

I wouldn't want McKenna. His first instinct seems to be to bend over and grasp his ankles when the US government loosens its belt-buckle. We need someone to stand up for Canada, and that's why I like David Orchard. And there is talk of another party in the wind, though it might just be wind.

[Maple]

18. Hard to get

intellectuals from humble beginnings. Costs money to get an education.

Usually means they haven't been able to travel much, or see the world from different viewpoints. An important qualification for a PM.

McKenna is a possiblility...there are others.

Orchard however has no chance.

Canada has dozens of parties. We don't need anymore.

We just need the two we have, to work.

[IntravenousDemilo]

20. It may be hard to find these people, but it's worth it to at least try.

I don't necessarily consider myself an "intellectual", but I did manage to graduate with a couple of degrees after a severely disadvantaged, though fairly happy, childhood. After my father died, we were on welfare for some years when I was a teenager. I got scholarships and also worked during university, ending up with no debt. So it can be done.

There would be more educated people from humble origins if public university or community college were free of charge to all who have the aptitude for it. In a truly civilized society, this would be the case. The only proviso I would make would be that those who benefited from the largesse of the state would have to work in Canada for at least the first ten years after graduation. We have to have some return on our investment after all. But that digression is for another thread.

McKenna is too much of a Yankee-butt-kissing corporatist for me, and a continentalist to boot. He'd be about as bad as John Manley, who gives me the heebie-jeebies for the same reasons. I trust neither to stand up for Canada's interests.

If I have anything to do with it, Orchard will have his day. Recent events have shown his misgivings about dealing with the leviathan to the south in general, and Free Trade in particular, were not unfounded, and were perhaps prophetic.

Whaddya mean, "the two we have"? There are four parties represented in Parliament, three of them national. And if we lived in a country where there were only two ways of seeing things, then maybe we could get by with only two parties. But we don't. This is a pluralistic society with a plurality of political ideologies, and I am glad this fact is reflected in Parliament. I think it shows more nuance and imagination than the black-and-white, take it or leave it, with us or agin' us, two-party example to the south.

We need some sort of proportional representation soon, to ensure perpetual minority governments that won't run roughshod over us. But that, too, is for another thread.

EDITED TO ADD: I take it, from your not mentioning it again, that you're satisfied with my explanation of "an intellectual average Joe".

[Maple]

21. Well Mulroney

is the son of a working class family, do you like him?

So is Chretien actually. Family of 18 kids in fact. And Joe Clark didn't come from money. For that matter, when Martin was a kid his MP dad didn't make much money. They were paid very badly in those days and expected to work for the honour of it all. Service to their country and so on.

Dief, Pearson...very few of our PMs had money.

We only have 2 parties likely to ever be in govt, and Harper is doing his best to remove the Cons from consideration.

After this last year's experience, I doubt Canadians want any more minority govt. It's just one crisis after another...more trouble than anything. Provinces can try PR first, and after that I doubt there'll be any further appetite for it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

25. Not really, no

But I do respect him for making his way in the world without daddy's money. I hated his toadying attitude to Big Brother while he was PM.

I quite like Chretien. I never voted for him, and I despised his ruthlessness, but eventually he governed like a liberal, not just a Liberal, and I thought he at least did more good than harm on the whole.

Joe Clark I have liked and admired very much, ever since I was supported him at the 1976 Tory convention. The several times I've talked with him, he was never less than perfectly gracious, and always well informed. However "stupid" Mulroney may think Clark is, you really don't get to be Prime Minister before your 40th birthday without having at least something on the ball.

Being from Saskatchewan, I'm almost required to have a soft spot for Diefenbaker -- the "Prairie Bolshevik", as he was called by Bay Street. He and Clark (and Stanfield) were true Progressive Conservatives, very much from the left wing of the party, even to the left of the Liberals in many ways. And I was a big fan of Dief's assertive behaviour towards the US. He was much hampered by ego and difficulty working with others, and his government suffered for it. Luckily, as an alternative we had...

Lester Pearson, a shining example of the good things that can be produced by minority governments. Pearson was a good and decent man. Most of the above were/are good and decent men who came from a time when being good and decent wasn't a bad thing.

I compare our choices back then with what we have now, both here and in the States, and it depresses me. There don't seem to be any real statesmen anymore, just weasels of various stripes. It's no wonder more and more people just can't be bothered voting, and it's really bad for democracy when the electorate becomes disaffected and detached from the process of choosing a government.

[Maple]

30. And while each of them was in office

they were hated and reviled in the same way as the current holders are, and people back then wondered why we didn't have good leaders anymore, and statesmen like we'd had in 'the past'.

And there have always been large numbers who didn't bother voting, and took no interest in it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

31. Funny, that.

Who knows? I might have a different opinion of Paul Martin 20 years from now.

[V. Kid]

8. You can't be serious.

That's the most contrite nonsense I've read on this forum in a while. And there are a lot of mindless capital-L Liberal cheerleaders around here, who think that the Liberals are awesome, the Conservatives are the spawns of the devil and that Canada's political scene is just like the two-party system of the US of A.

There are plenty of successful, intelligent and worthy people who didn't get rich by outsourcing Canadian jobs to third world countries for the sake of tax benefits like our current Prime Minister. Besides how is it that someone's finances automatically indicate their ability, or lack there of, to run a country? Not to mention the fact that should PMPM still be PM in a two or three years, watching as the PQ wins the next Quebec election (or at least has a really good shot at it), there's a pretty good chance that he'll be the last PM of a united Canada as we know it now. Frankly PMPM doesn't seem like a Trudeau-ian figure who'd be able to drum up federalist support in Quebec, I have absolutely no confidence in his ability to do that.

The previous poster was absolutely correct, Martin is an overly ambitious guy. Stabbing a successful PM in the back isn't very Prime Ministerial. And while obviously one needs to be ambitious, and have an ego that exudes confidence and a certain idea that they are an extraordinary person should they want to be PM, Martin has tended to chase power without having any real vision. It seems as if he's just in it for the sake of it cause his daddy never became PM.

[Maple]

9. I'm always serious

and I'm not in the least 'contrite'

I don't think I've met any Liberals at DU. Most Canucks hereabouts seem to be NDP.

Nor do I recall saying any such nonsense about the Liberals being awesome, or our system being remotely like the American one.

I do agree though that the Conservatives...that is, Reform...are spawns of the devil. They aren't the PC party which was at least a viable alternative to the Liberals. The Cons are mostly a local religious movement, not to be taken seriously at the national level.

Outsourcing is an American problem. Not a Canadian one. We went through that years ago, and are now into the next level. The HQ of CSL is in Montreal, and the majority of workers are Canadian. The union head has nothing but praise for Martin in fact.

Anyone who runs a global business has some idea of how the world works in this current era. And has met a payroll, made something work, has contacts everywhere, and has some experience at a larger level than their back porch or the nearest bar.

Separatism in Quebec is dead and has been for some years. The new generation is concerned with a wider world, and isn't interested in walls. Would that Stephen Harper was the same!

Trudeau would be the wrong person entirely for this era...which is fortunate since he is long dead.

I have no idea what 'overly ambitious' means...but you don't get to head a global company, and become PM without ambition. And hard work. And brains.

As to the stuff about Chretien, or wanting to be PM because of his dad, or the no vision...that's just newspaper hype. Don't believe everything you read.

He laid out his vision sometime ago. I like it. I hope he can carry it out. I have zilch interest in urban myths.

And since the alternative is Harper and the SoCons..... :puke:

[IntravenousDemilo]

13. I think V. Kid meant to say "trite", not "contrite". Just a theory. nm

[V. Kid]

15. It doesn't matter, cause I didn't use the proper word anyways...

...so let's just say I find the Liberal cheerleading, without anything to back it up somewhat annoying. Why? Because of their right-wing, in a Canadian sense, record.

[V. Kid]

14. Mmmm, 'Ok.

Alright, so I suppose you think it's great that our Prime Minister wants to avoid the taxes of our country by registering his ships in third world countries. That's what he did, register the flags there. He got angry at the NDP for pointing this out, claiming it was a personal attack. Which of course was nonsense, as all he was doing was trying to avoid the basis for the criticism. What it means is this: the people that crew the boats aren't Canadian, nor does the company have to pay taxes to the Canadian goverment. Hence the entire point of the excercise. Everyone knows it. To make claims about the union being happy with his leadership of the company or something, regarding jobs at CSL's Canadian HQ, is irrlelvent to that specific situation. And yeah, outsourcing is a Canadian problem as much as it is an American one, it effects every country in a globalized world, especially rich countries such as ours. The countries with the "most appealing labour climate" will get the jobs, which often means cheapest wages, which usually means that we'll loose jobs. Even our "white collar jobs" aren't immune, as countries like China and India are churing out University Grads who'll do those jobs for a tenth of a wage that we'll do them for. But if you'd care to explain what this "next level" is, and how it'll protect jobs from migrating away from Canada and towards the developing world, be my geust.

I don't know, nor really care, if there are any capital-L liberals around here. What I do know is that there are a lot of capital-L liberal voters around here, and they do often see things within the prism of Liberals = Good (as if they are), Conservatives = Bad (which is true), NDP = irrelevent/incomptent (isn't true/pretty much all political parties are incomptent at times).

As for Sovreignty:

A third referendum is all too possible: The Liberal government of Quebec is trailing badly in the polls. Support for sovereignty, if you believe the polls, is at the same level as it was in October 1995. Contenders for the Parti Quebecois leadership vie with each other to be the most determined, abrupt and inflexible about getting out of Canada, by almost any means. (An important exception is Louis Bernard, who said it would be irresponsible for the National Assembly to make a unilateral declaration of independence following a referendum victory.)

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=0f3e821c-d721-43e4-9ee6-56c9881a50ec

As for PMPM trying to get the job cause his dad never could, well, he did dedicate his win in the Liberal Party leadership race to his Dad, and was pretty emotional about it literally wrapping himself in the flag. So I think it's pretty obvious what that means.

[Maple]

17. Martin ran a global shipping firm

in competition with other global shipping firms. And he made a profit...and he didn't do that by being silly. He plays by the same legal rules as everyone else.

A very successful businessman as PM...and yet you're complaining.

He paid Canadian taxes...HQ is in Montreal. He just wasn't double taxed...a wise idea, no? Over half his ships were Canadian registered...but ships for other countries were registered in those countries. That would be the meaning of 'global'.

And yes indeed, over half the work force is also Canadian.

Everybody 'knows' nothing.

In any case...he's retired from the shipping business.

Canada has been through the outsourcing stage...you must have missed it. Copps called it the 'deindustrialization of Canada.'

Which is just as well because the Industrial age is over, and we are now in the Information age.

Canada is booming, and creating new jobs. We don't have a problem.

People choose Liberal most often, as they are seen as moderate and middle of the road. NDP are seen as too leftwing and extreme, and the Cons are seen as too rightwing and extreme.

Canadians don't like extremes. I'm sorry but they don't. And if a party wants to get elected in Canada...they have to tailor their policies accordingly.

Separatists can rant all they want, but Quebec isn't leaving. Young people don't care about an outdated idea, and want to globalize, not hide at home behind walls.

Martin talked about his dad ....so? He loved his dad. I doubt anyone has a problem with that. Will it harm Canada? No.

[V. Kid]

26. Well uh....

First off anyone who knows anything about Quebec politics will tell you that the federalists are in trouble (hence the link). You keep talking about "outdated ideas" like that in itself is a description of reality, but its only your position on it. You are deluding yourself. The reality of the situation is that its very volatile, and will require strong leadership, not to mention the Liberals (which unfortunately symbolize federalism in Quebec) recovering from the black eye that Sponsorship scandal has given them. And while it's true that it's not as big of an issue in English Canada, it sure is in Quebec. I hope that Quebec will stay put, but should the Liberals stay in power at both levels for the next few years without addressing these problems, and should Charest especially, and Martin to a lesser extent, continue to be unpopular with Quebeckers they'll only increase support for Sovereignty which is already at near 1995 levels. Besides your entire bent on the issue is incorrect, unfortunately the young people (well francophones anyway) of Quebec are far more likely to be sovereigntists then their parents and grandparents. It's the older generation that are the federalists. The only demographic hope that Canada has with regards to Quebec staying put, is that more non pure-lane francophones move into Quebec (and since they prefer Ontario and BC by large margins this means the situation will continue to be volatile at best, likely to lead to sovereignty at worst).

Secondly, as its clear we’re going to go in circles about CSL I'll address something else you said. Re: Canadians liking certain parties, your assessment isn't very good. In the last election if the Liberals were the "moderates" and the Conservatives and NDP are the "extremists", the "extremists" out polled the "moderates" by at least 10%, but heck might as well throw in the Green Party and BQ both of which are pretty radical vis a vis the Liberals, meaning the extremists got about 62% of the Canadian vote (less other parties and independents). Just luckily for the Liberals in our electoral system their's was the biggest bloc of votes, but I digress. In any case your reasoning is incorrect.

Thirdly, it's interesting that you call my critique a complaint, judging by your tendency to fall back on points that I've already pointed out are incorrect I find that your using an interesting, but thoroughly banal, tactic that tends to make you look like a broken record. If my critique were simply a complaint, I wouldn't have any reasoning behind my statements. In any case I have no problem with a businessman being PM, although I'd prefer they actually be progressive, but it seems as if you have a problem with anyone else being PM, as according to you earlier on, the only way one is successful is if their rich. And only a rich person can be PM, it seems quite elitist. While realistically it may be true that usually only rich people can get into those positions, its distasteful that one would insinuate that only rich people should be in those positions.

Fourthly, I'm not only talking about manufacturing jobs when it comes to globalization. It's interesting that you have no grasp on the economic realities of the world, yet presume to speak at such lengths about it repeating the same points over and over again. As more hi-tech, white collar jobs as I already said if you took the time to read my post, let alone low level IT ones that are moving even quicker to developing countries where they will do the work for piddly wages compared to us, keep moving away feel free to pretend that outsourcing doesn't effect Canada. Look how big China and India are, they have a lot of graduates with degrees who aren’t manufacturing shoes.

And btw, considering the actions of the man, in ousting a sitting PM (and no I don't think Chretien was a particularly innocent and holy man, but nonetheless a coup like this has never happened before in Canadian history), considering the way that he treated his leadership rivals and completely did nothing to reach out to them if they wanted to stay in elected office (Sheila Copps anyone?), I tend to think he is power hungry. While you can mention something obvious like the fact that he loves his father. I think it's pretty obvious that his father's inability to ever become PM, coupled with his manoeuvring for the Liberal leadership since he originally lost it to Chretien (in 1990!) is a clear indication of his desire to gain power. And anyone who is more interested in gaining power, for powers sake, is questionable to say the least, regardless of whether or not he comes across as a "nice guy".

[Maple]

29. In Quebec

there are only two choices...Liberals and PQ.

When they're fed up with Liberals, there is no other choice but PQ

However that doesn't mean they have any interest in separating...and all polls indicate there isn't any such interest.

The PQ has been in before, and Quebec is still here.

And they will remain.

Canada has a first-past-the-post system...and what counts is the number of people voting for the SAME party, not the scattered votes. The party the majority agree on. Everyone is aware of that. And Liberals won...even with a huge scandal going on.

I'd rather have a PM who has been successful in other endeavors rather than someone who's been a failure, yes.

And poverty is not a qualification for our highest electoral office. Poverty is not a virtue.

Economics is my field, it's what I do....and for that matter I've been in politics.

Outsourcing is not a problem in Canada. It is in the US.

Outsourcing is, in fact, bringing us new jobs.

You don't get to be PM unless you're power hungry...that is not evil you know. If you want to do something for the country, you don't get to do it sitting in the Opposition benches.

It's how all our PMs have risen to that position.

[V. Kid]

32. Actually in Quebec...

...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/27/sovereignty-poll050427.html

Is this case including this:

MONTREAL - A new poll shows support for sovereignty among Quebecers has surpassed 50 per cent, the highest level in the province in seven years.

--snip--

The poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir newspapers showed 54 per cent of decided respondents supported sovereignty if it included an economic and political partnership with Canada.

That's the same question asked during the Oct. 30, 1995 referendum that saw Quebecers reject sovereignty by a slim margin – 50.6 per cent to 49.4 per cent.



Whether its "sovreignty association" or right independence both will mean that Canada as we know it will be radically changed.

I simply don't believe your assessment of the economic situation re: outsourcing. It doesn't make any logical sense, it sounds like the sort of attitudes that many of my fellow Canadians have about our country like its perfect. Well it's pretty damn good, but it isn't perfect. But if you think that we aren't facing competition from lower wage countries for our white collar jobs; well then we'll see how that works out.

There's a diffrence between wanting to be PM, and overthrowing a current PM in what amounts to a bloodless political coup. Sure leadership battles happen all the time, but the convention is to wait until the current leader screws up. Paul Martin screwed around with that.

As for your poverty comment that's another ridiculous thing you've said regarding the economic status of the Prime Minister's office. Obviously a begger wouldn't become PM, but don't be such an obfusicator. I'm refering to the fact that you keep insisting that rich people need to be PM. Fine be an elietist. But clearly anyone who is intellgent enough, with the skills, and desire, should be able to be PM regardless of their economic situation (which means that it includes the middle class, people of working class background etc).

But perhaps your right, only rich people can be PM. Ta' for now caughn't have the peasants ruling over anything now can we? Ahahahaha. Oh I slay me.

Oh dear it seems as if I've lost my monicle.

[Maple]

33. Sorry...hokum

Just like polls that show Cons higher than Liberals.

"if it included an economic and political partnership with Canada."

That isn't sovereignty. :rofl:

And they aren't going anywhere.

I don't care if you believe me or not...I work with it everyday, so I know what's going on economically. And no one said Canada was perfect...certainly no Canadian. We live in a 'culture of complaint' in fact.

There was no coup..please don't be melodramatic. Had Chretien chosen not to go...we have no mechanism to force him out. And neither did Martin.

There are no restrictions on who becomes PM, other than public perception. Find the last one that was not a university graduate.

I said few of our PMs have been rich...don't reverse what I said.

And Canada doesn't have peasants. Pheasants yes, peasants, no.

[V. Kid]

34. You probably are into politics, you spin things like a top.

Then again if you are your probably not very good at it. Anyone who knows anything about politics will tell you that the Conservatives were ahead of the Liberals for a big chunk of the last election campaign. Seriously who sends their Cabinet Ministers to protest Stephen Harper? How amateurish is that! It's just too bad for the Cons (should they ever want to win) that they're horrible campaigners, have freaks up the Yazoo, and can't seem to know when to shut up or not offend most Canadians sensibilities* (what with the freakish policies and all). I'll give the Liberals some points, they're good at making the most of Cons. stupidity. Nonetheless for Canada to rely on the same thing vis a vis separatism is stupid, and I hope to heck you have no influence over anything cause if the country had to rely on people with your skill set to access the political situation we'd be in deep crap.

*The ridiculous accusations of the NDP and Liberals supporting child porn.

The sovereignty movement isn't as stupid as the Cons. Nonetheless its funny how you claim that I'm miss representing your position at first you said: "Separatism in Quebec is dead and has been for some years. The new generation is concerned with a wider world, and isn't interested in walls". Which could only mean that support for sovereignty isn't going anywhere in Quebec. As you can see by the link it is. It's funny how you try to deny reality, but clearly the reality is that if a vote were held today they'd Canada would be radically changed. And more people would've voted YES to the 1995 credendum question, then NO if a vote were held today. Of course their position is ridiculous "political and economic partnership with Canada" while being an independent country is an oxymoron. Nonetheless do you think Canada would've remained the same if the results of the 1995 referendum were 50.6% yes, 49.4% no? If you do think the country would've stayed the same you’re minus the oxy.

As for the political coup comment prove to me when another sitting prime minister was ousted. I don't care about your spin. Just prove to me when this happened. If you can't, then you have no point to make.

As for our PM's financial status you said :

"And wealthy people are the only ones that can spend all the years climbing through the ranks, and also knowing how to get things done around the world.

Who would you elect...? Yer average Joe who's never done anything?"

If that doesn't mean that wealthy people are the only ones who can be PM's, I don't know what else it could mean. Obviously someone who is unintelligent shouldn't be elected to be PM, but yet again the financial thing is completely preposterous.

[Maple]

35. Facts are facts

Your opinion is your opinion.

Don't confuse the two.

I've been in politics, and I speak from experience and knowledge of the players, the system and the times.

The Cons haven't even come close to winning, and they aren't going to.

I'm sorry, but separatism in Quebec is dead.

Your views on these topics come from reading column filler in newspapers. Not reality.

No sitting PM has been ousted...it isn't even possible.

Educated people, professional people...people with some real-world experience could get things done.

And usually...educated people, professional people...with real-world experience... are well off.

[V. Kid]

36. You must know that...

...when you interject your opinion into things, and claim that they are facts you tend to loose credibility especially when you claim that I do such things, when I've done no such thing. I have provided facts, not just from columns, but from credible news organizations, and polling companies. You have provided opinions based on your views and your constant claim that your an expert on everything from politics to economics and therefore are right. All you've done is repeated yourself incessently, trying desperatley to deny the facts, even though its really not a big deal to loose an argument over the internet. Well anyways, just read our argument a week later, you'll see what I'm talking about, and you'll be embaressed for yourself.

Cheers.

[Maple]

37. I never put opinion before facts

You have provided the varying opinions of columnists striving to fill column inches as your own, and worse as any kind of objective reality.

And a week from now, your opinion, and that of your 'fave columnists' will have changed, as they always do.

[V. Kid]

39. One last thing...

..., putting aside your fact free opinions, can you explain to me whats wrong with the CBC and Leger Marketing? How are they opinion pieces?

[Maple]

40. Putting aside my opinion-free facts

a poll result depends on what you ask, and how you ask it.

[V. Kid]

41. If you could expand upon the deception lane* one-liner...

...and branch into critical thought perhaps could you explain what's wrong with the Leger Marketing survey? (And I do realize this isn't one last thing, but you don't expand upon your points, so I'd really be intrested in seeing you actually expand upon them.)

Since you can't accept the facts presented in the poll could you explain how its methadology is suspect? Without of course relying on your opinion of how convoluted the "sovreignty-association" proposal is. And I say that because that was the question that was put to the Quebec public in 1995. And thus could you explain why the CBC is a horrible news organization for including it in their news piece?

*Jon Stewart destroying the "political debate" show 'Crossfire'.

I'm feeding you a way to actually make yourself look intellgent, all you need to do is eat up. P.S. Links are always tasty.

[Maple]

42. You gave the question yourself.

That's not sovereignty...that's status quo.

Ontario would have agreed to that!

I'm amazed anyone voted AGAINST it.

CBC isn't 'horrible'. And I didn't say one word about them.

They simply reported a news item.

Kindly restrict yourself to the topic, and avoid personal remarks.

They're not helping you.

[V. Kid]

43. ?

P.S. My comments regarding your behaviour are observations, which you've done everything to conform too.

Well, like I said, regarding some of your points (the main ones none of which I agree with) would be beefed up with some credible links. Just a suggestion, oh well don't take it under advisement.

[Maple]

44. I gather you've finished now

seeing as you have nothing else to say.

Bon nuit.

[HEyHEY]

45. I hate the cons too

But considering they are the official opposition... I think they are to be taken seriously on a National level. Of course, most parties out of the west are treated with that disregard by the east.

[Maple]

46. The Bloq was Opposition too

and I don't like them either.

Canada would LOVE a genuine Opposition party...a serious alternative to the Liberals.

The Cons simply aren't it...and can't be taken seriously.

Their policies are 'Republican North'...it doesn't matter if they come from Alberta, BC. the NWT, Nunavut or PEI...the policies are simply not acceptable to the majority of Canadians

No one hates the west...you guys have got to quit with the myths...it's killing you.

[V. Kid]

47. Oh I'm dying...oh...

...medic, medic. Western Alienation, you big myth, why must you slay me so?

[CHIMO]

5. I Think

That the average "Joe or Jane" could represent us a lot better. Hell you don't have to do anything but lay around all day and tell those experts what to do and then tell half truths at election time.(Granted it would take some training for the average Joe or Jane to speak with forked tongue.)

At least they would have some understanding for the little people.

[Maple]

11. I can see

you've never been in politics

[Canadian_moderate]

10. I think he's alright.

Not as good as I expected, but he's doing better after the initial horrible start. He should have been PM at least 5 years earlier.

Chretien left Martin with some very messy situations that ended up costing Martin the Liberal majority in parliament. This has been a blessing in disguise. I actually like Martin's (and Goodale's) fiscal restraint.

Martin does seem to waver a little too much, like his handled on the Missile Shield decision. I think he makes decisions based on popular opinion rather than his own convictions, but that is not always a bad thing. Unlike Chretien who did whatever the hell he wanted and damned be the consequences.

Another things is that at least Martin does not embarrass Canadian on the International stage the way Chretien did. Chretien's command of Canada's official languages was embarrassing.

[V. Kid]

16. Actually...

...Chretien did that very thing, govern according to the polls. If that wern't the case he wouldn't have won three majority goverments. Not to say he was great or anything, but the guy has been around forever, he was a master politician. His record of achievements though...we'll that's pretty mixed. And his time as PM, other than the right-wing bent of his goverment (economically), was rather like Sienfeld, a show about nothing.

[Maple]

19. Governing by the polls

means following the will of the people, something democracy is supposed to mean.

Chretien inherited a huge deficit and debt. You have to look after the bottom line or go under.

He did...as did Martin as his finance minister...a great job at getting us back on track again.

I'm sure they both would have preferred handing out goodies to making cutbacks, but they didn't have that choice.

[Pierre Trudeau]

22. He's no Pearson, that's for sure

The most appropriate comparison would be to Pearson, who never won a majority himself, but still managed to accomplish a lot while presiding over a golden age for Canada.

Pearson's first term was also marked by criticisms of dithering and indecision, but in retrospect his five-year government is considered one of the most effective and accomplished. Pearson's style was collaborative rather than confrontational (he was a Nobel Peace Proze-winning diplomat, after all), and he had help from some genuine political heavyweights of the time, including "Greatest Canadian" Tommy Douglas and Paul Martin's father, the architects of our public health care system.

I suspect Martin Jr. is trying to follow in Pearson's footsteps, but there is one notable difference: Pearson knew how to surround himself with high-calibre people, whereas Martin alienated a lot of Liberal talent due to his unseemly feud with the Chretien wing of the party. It's a pretty pathetic bunch around Martin right now, and he's done little to rise above and get good work from his team.

That being said, I find it hard to actually dislike the guy. Stephen Harper is easy to dislike. On the other hand, Jack Layton is the most likable of all the leaders, but there's no getting around his lack of federal experience. He's not going to be PM anytime soon, so most people figure we're stuck with Martin for now, and oh well, we could do worse. As the recent reappearance of boogeyman Mulroney reminds us.

Someone one this thread expressed their preference for "Last Of The Great Liberals" Lloyd Axworthy to be PM, which is nice wishful thinking, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Freedom Socialist]

24. Uhhh...

I think the NDP is too right-wing, so how do you think I feel?

[CHIMO]

38. DAEDALUS & ICARUS

To escape, Daedalus built wings for himself and Icarus, fashioned with feathers held together with wax. Daedalus warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, as it would melt his wings, and not too close to the sea, as it would dampen them and make it hard to fly.

They successfully flew from Crete, but Icarus grew exhilarated by the thrill of flying and began getting careless. Flying too close to the sun god Helios, the wax holding together his wings melted from the heat and he fell to his death, drowning in the sea. The Icarian Sea, where he fell, was named after him and it is said that Heracles (Hercules), who passed by, gave him burial. Daedalus lamented his dead son and then continued to Sicily, where he came to stay at the court of Cocalus in a place called Camicus.

http://thanasis.com/icarus.htm