Were you out of the country?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/30/harper-…

August 29, 2008: Harper meets with Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois in an attempt to find common ground between the Bloc and the Conservatives.
August 30, 2008: Harper meets with Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democrats in an attempt to find common ground between the NDP and the Conservatives.
September 1, 2008: Harper meets with Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberals, in an attempt to find common ground between the Liberals and the Conservatives, and avert the dissolution of Parliament, allowing the fall session to continue as planned. However, after a twenty-minute meeting at 24 Sussex Drive, the PM's official residence, Dion emerges stating there is no common ground between the two parties, and that an election is certain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_ele…

Were you out of the country?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/30/harper-…

August 29, 2008: Harper meets with Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois in an attempt to find common ground between the Bloc and the Conservatives.
August 30, 2008: Harper meets with Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democrats in an attempt to find common ground between the NDP and the Conservatives.
September 1, 2008: Harper meets with Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberals, in an attempt to find common ground between the Liberals and the Conservatives, and avert the dissolution of Parliament, allowing the fall session to continue as planned. However, after a twenty-minute meeting at 24 Sussex Drive, the PM's official residence, Dion emerges stating there is no common ground between the two parties, and that an election is certain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_ele…

Not to get too much into a he said she said kind of match but I bring up the hand book on how to bog down committees. And many of the examples you site were not done due to consultation but because of a hammer. Using a hammer is not good either.

One also needs to evaluate the effectiveness and how information gleaned from consultation is incorporated into the development of positions. I think we have a long way to go to achieve a good working model for this by all parties at all levels of government . I think perhaps we could learn something by looking at the structure used in the territories where consensus is an integral part of governance. That is why I had hope by the performance of Leona Aglukkaq – that she could be an example of a different way.

This is my first long post and last. I hope the links helps improves the discourse to the facts vs smaller issues.

Just like how Liberals did not care about Omar captured at 15 in 2002 for four years. They sent RCMP/CSIS to assist in the interrogation.

or how the Liberals allowed 18,000 litres to leak from Chalk River facility in 1991, the Liberal boondoggle Maple Reactors that were to be commissioned in 2000?

Need links?

Not that I'm complaining about this analysis at all, but why does this poster get to write this giant essay, when I have posts much shorter than this that are rejected for being too long, on this very same thread?

Not that I'm complaining about this analysis at all, but why does this poster get to write this giant essay, when I have posts much shorter than this that are rejected for being too long?

Is that official Left fringe position or just your opinion?

Democracy should be held hostage by Quebec separtists and socialists who require the only two major parties dump billions to stay in power?

57% of the seats outside Quebec were won by the CPC.134/233 seats. How well did the NDP do?

Is that official Left fringe position or just your opinion?

Democracy should be held hostage by Quebec separtists and socialists who require the only two major parties dump billions to stay in power?

57% of the seats outside Quebec were won by the CPC.134/233 seats.

Is the official Left fringe position?

Democracy should be held hostage by Quebec separtists and socialists who require the only two major parties dump billions to stay in power?

57% of the seats outside Quebec were won by the CPC.134/233 seats.

And, whether you think we need one or not, if the Liberals decide they no longer have confidence in the government, should they let it stand ?

I'll also add, the government's main concern is talking points. They want the next election to be fought on them versus a coalition. It was great when the Liberals kept them in power, they stayed in government and made the Opposition look weak all at the same time, but they don't want anything to do with the NDP or BQ, as it's pretty hard to attack the Liberals for being supported by socialists and separatists, if one of those two groups help prop your government up for X number of months.

Do we know in the last ten years if Canadians were actually ever demanding an election? Maybe 2006?

The other thing that bothers me about polls is the qualifier. I mean if a strong percentage of people have no intention of voting whenever an election is called are these polls really accurate?

At the end of the day we can slaughter a goat or push a vorgin in a volcano but we wont know till voting day. Elections are by their nature uncertain things…this is why I think the Liberals actually need to be more careful, are they really sure that MI will perform well on the trail and in those numerous unscripted moments. This is what would be keeping me awake at night if I were the Liberal campaign chair.

Now if they were in the lead he could run a keep away campaign and minimize the risk.

Of course if your calculation is that it doesnt matter and all that matters is Con minority so you can……naw couldnt be the case, too crazy to off the wall.

"There's been a big temptation to see this unwanted holiday election…"

And the Canadian Press (story reposted by a blogger here, couldn't find a direct link: http://thinkright1.blogspot.com/2005/09/liberals-…

The Liberals are leaning against introducing
confidence measures in the House of Commons this fall that could trigger an
unwanted federal election, sources said today.
…
the Tories would be stuck
with one of two unattractive options: prop up the government on the eve of an
election call, or topple the Liberals before Gomery has a chance to report on
the sponsorship scandal.

"There's been a big temptation to see this unwanted holiday election…"

And the Canadian Press (story reposted by a blogger here, couldn't find a direct link: http://thinkright1.blogspot.com/2005/09/liberals-…

The Liberals are leaning against introducing
confidence measures in the House of Commons this fall that could trigger an
unwanted federal election, sources said today.
…
the Tories would be stuck
with one of two unattractive options: prop up the government on the eve of an
election call, or topple the Liberals before Gomery has a chance to report on
the sponsorship scandal.

What I found quite funny was that this poll was never mentioned in the press. I guess whoever paid for it decided that it would be a bit too embarassing to actually publish the results of it. :-)

As for bias amongst reporters, I do agree that perceived bias does not equal actual bias. However, in the eyes of the public, perception=reality. The problem for the media is not whether or not they are biased, but is that the public SEES them as biased.

On the flip side there are some reporters who may think they aren't biased when they in fact are. A person's own bias can often make assessing one's own bias impossible, because their own thoughts will manipulate their logic. I think most people (like myself) expect reporters to have SOME bias, since they are human like everyone else.

What I found quite funny was that this poll was never mentioned in the press. I guess whoever paid for it decided that it would be a bit too embarassing to actually publish the results of it. :-)

As for bias amongst reporters, I do agree that perceived bias does not equal actual bias. However, in the eyes of the public, perception=reality. The problem for the media is not whether or not they are biased, but is that the public SEES them as biased.

On the flip side there are some reporters who may think they aren't biased when they in fact are. A person's own bias can often make assessing one's own bias impossible, because their own thoughts will manipulate their logic. I think most people (like myself) expect reporters to have SOME bias, since they are human like everyone else.

Precisely. This is the point behind our entire system – the government maintaining the confidence of the House. We voted those MPs in to represent our wishes, and if they think that this is the way they have to do it, then so be it.

*to get the kid to do so?

It's like babysitting a kid, and telling them that their kid behaved — except that you had to threaten how many time-outs to get him to do so?

It's takes what, about 10 minutes to go to your local school and vote? What a burden eh?

Ask the folks in Afghanistan about democracy and voting – they are the ones who should be upset – not us

However, i will turn this on its head and say that the con support with out of Canada born canadians is higher than it has been in the past…indicative of their push in those communities…Jason Kenney's on going mission, seek out new life and new civilizations, boldly go where no con has gone before.

Now to be cheeky, maybe a better segmentation would have been looking at Iggy's support of Canadians who have been expats for significant portions of their lives. I suspect he has big support there.

However, i will turn this on its head and say that the con support with out of Canada born canadians is higher than it has been in the past…indicative of their push in those communities…Jason Kenney's on going mission, seek out new life and new civilizations, boldly go where no con has gone before.

Now to be cheeky, maybe a better segmentation would have been looking at Iggy's support of Canadians who have been expats for significant portions of their lives. I suspect he has big support there.

No-one in 2005 was reporting the way they are today. In 2005, reporters couldn't mention "election" in a news story without adding the word "unwanted" in the same sentence. That does not happen anymore. Maybe the editors are the ones that used to add this word back then, or remove it today?

All I know was that an election was portrayed as an ominous thing in 2005 in news reports, and that whoever triggered it would suffer the wrath of the electorate. It was unmistakable and unforgettable, because I did want one, and the reporting absolutely infuriated me. And it doesn't happen today. The reporting today comes off more as groundwork, to cement the idea of an election early in order to minimize backlash.

However, I think most people know that the bias is spread around. It doesn't take long to learn that you will get a pro-Tory slant in the National Post, or that you will get a pro-Liberal slant in the Toronto Star. I think the closest I have seen to unbiased is the Hill Times, although they do have teeny lean to the left.

With readers one only needs to watch the comments, since the 'thumbs' or 'agree/disagree' will be used as a means to punish anyone who doesn't share their partisan views, and will quickly indicate which partisan group is in the majority.

Don't worry it shows, and thats a good thing.

But yes, outside of some normal accountability or fair comment the bias discussion is pretty anodyne. But take is a compliment (if only to cope) that they care enough to think that what you do matters.

However, I think most people know that the bias is spread around. It doesn't take long to learn that you will get a pro-Tory slant in the National Post, or that you will get a pro-Liberal slant in the Toronto Star. I think the closest I have seen to unbiased is the Hill Times, although they do have teeny lean to the left.

With readers one only needs to watch the comments, since the 'thumbs' or 'agree/disagree' will be used as a means to punish anyone who doesn't share their partisan views, and will quickly indicate which partisan group is in the majority.

However, I think most people know that the bias is spread around. It doesn't take long to learn that you will get a pro-Tory slant in the National Post, or that you will get a pro-Liberal slant in the Toronto Star. I think the closest I have seen to unbiased is the Hill Times, although they do have teeny lean to the left.

With readers one only needs to watch the comments, since the 'thumbs' or 'agree/disagree' will be used as a means to punish anyone who doesn't share their partisan views, and will quickly indicate which partisan group is in the majority.

Hmmm, interesting point. My take is that Iggy has high hopes of pretty well wiping out the Tories in Quebec. Then, at the next election, he can make the case that the Tories aren't a "national" party. So we're seeing the start of a tag-team effort by Iggy, Duceppe, probably special interest groups again, to target Harper, and remove the blue pieces of the map. Whether Charest joins in again, piling on Harper, is unknown. The Mulroney party, with Charest and "the ultimate olive branch" Laureen Harper (Ian Macdonald's description) in attendance, will be interesting to observe.