Sadly, I somteimes remember things you said previously – such as right after the Security Council vote where you said this loss would prevent us from influencing decisions on the Afghanistan war. Which, thankfully, I now learn doesn't come into it. It is sad though that Canada is being tossed out of the UN (and/or NATO).

It's okay, she doesn't get it.

I don't understand why the NDP won't give Mr, Harper credit for taking us out of NATO like this. It seems petty of them.

Doesn't matter what you believe….obviously they did.

Check the numbers…we lost by a massive amount, so it wasn't any 'Arab bloc'

And the US won't say if it did or didn't….which means they didn't

We aren't on the security council

Yes, and we lobbied HARD the other times we shot for a seat too.

News flash: there's a difference between assiduously lobbying for a seat on the UN Security Council, and being neurotically obsessed with what others (including other countries) think about you. The Harper government did the former; the latter is currently being displayed by the Liberal Party of Canada partisans who seem to think that the sky has fallen and the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding down Yonge Street because we lost the vote.

And BTW, the word is "faze", not "phase".

It would have been nice if we had gotten the seat.

I never said it wasn't a nice thing for Canada to have.

But now that we haven't gotten it, the mature, adult thing to do is move on and put it in perspective.

For instance: had we gotten the seat and Germany and/or Portugal had not, would that have meant that Germany/Portugal should be gnashing their teeth in anguish? Would that have meant that Germany/Portugal had isolated itself on the world stage and were being punished for their retrograde foreign policies?

Or maybe, in the alternative, it's like our mommies and daddies and teachers told us when we were very little: someone has to win, someone has to lose. And the fact that you lose doesn't mean you're evil, bad or scummy.

There is a difference between a healthy and normal concern for our standing in the world, versus a neurotic, insecure obsession with what other countries (and in particular retrograde regimes like N Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe) think of us.

I find it telling that you have to mischaracterize the position of the liberals in order to make your point. There is no neurotic insecure obsession. There is matter of fact pointing out that Harper lobbied hard for a seat, and failed miserably. This is embarssing. That you fail to see that says a lot about you.

ted…..when you are looking up the number of eligible voters who did not vote Conservative in the last election could you also include the number of eligible voters who did not vote Liberal ?

I do know the Liberal Percentage of vote has been in a steady decline the last few years if that will help you.

Hey gotta. talk to ted—-he`s the one who keeps repeating the same " beyond dumb " stuff.

What the heck is a sh*tcanning ? Anyway I was just sacastically letting ted know he need not repeat those same useless numbers no matter how many times he`s told to do so.

And I do think that the Conservative caucus is the most representative caucus in Ottawa in the sense that the values of the Silent Majority in Canada would identify more with the Conservative MP`s then the other caucuses even though many of them find other reasons to vote for one of the Opp. parties.
….just my opinion….take it for what it`s worth…..please don`t go sh*tcanning me.

*Silent Majority*

It is easy to claim majority support when you also claim that support is silent and a secret.

Well I disagree quite strongly. I think it has very clear and important meaning when the government relies on fewer and fewer citizens for its support. Canada has not suddenly moved into some bizarro world where ordinary behaviour is flipped upside down. When people support a candidate, they go and support the candidate. Like they have in this country for over 150 years.

The last three elections have had the lowest levels of support for the PM in our entire history. One Martin, two Harper. It doesn't make any sense to say that the vast majority of Canadians supported the status quo under Martin and showed that support for the status quo by taking his majority away. Likewise, it doesn't make any sense to say that Canadians are happy with Harper and the status quo and prove that by not supporting anyone. And the polling on issues of satisfaction with the government and the leaders why they voted/did not vote backs that up.

'At the end of the day, when an eligible voter chooses not to vote we can't make any claims about whether that person "supports" or "opposes" the government"

But we can say that none of the parties excites those who chose not to vote. It is reasonable to say that while not liking what oppositon parties or personalities have to offer, the fact that they don't choose to support the govt as an alternative is in itself significant. I would guess that how long term the trend to not vote has been is also significant – also not this govt's fault, but neither have they done anything to halt the trend – no doubt there's lots of blame to go around.

Well I just don't have the statistics on which oppositions had the lowest level of support. I don't think you can just flip those numbers around. It is quite conceivable that Laurier under Union government or the Liberals under Turner or for Dief's first term had less support among eligible voters. You'd have to look at their votes against the number of eligible voters.

But read my comments below about responsible government. I'm not talking about who has the right to govern – obviously Harper does and is fully legitimate without question – but the fact he has the lowest level of support matters – or should – in how he governs in a responsible government.

I've also brought that stat up only when people wrongly claim such nonsense as "Canadians support him" or "most Canadians support him". Such historically record low levels of support as Harper has should not be sending people into such inaccurate bragging. Plus, that low a level of support is easier to switch suddenly.

People who don't vote are – as a matter of logic – giving their consent and their endorsement to the choice of those people who do vote. The Conservatives won last time, c'est tout.

If the opposition doesn't oppose then carte blanche is precisely what it is…

"People who don't vote are – as a matter of logic – giving their consent and their endorsement to the choice of those people who do vote.'

That would presume those who don't vote do so out of apathy. If this could be proven i would endorse your statement. But since it can't i'm not sure it's correct to assume it. Not voting is a legimate choice if you feel no-one or no party is satisfactory. Perhaps only a few fall into this catagory, and perhaps a spoiled ballot is the valid choice for such a person. I'm certainly not endorsing non-participation, but maybe it's not that simple. A long term trend to non participation can't be just dismissed with a shrug ie., that's their choice, too bad. Or, they gave their consent and endorsement by not turning up.

Harper will never get 40%

I wouldn't be so sure about that, as a matter of fact if Iggy keeps it up he might even loose his seat!

That would be pretty unlikely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etobicoke%E2%80%94La…

They lost. They aren't in charge of our government. They aren't the ones claiming a mandate from the people.

Harper is in government but with the weakest mandate of all PMs that preceded him. That's the point.

No one is saying they can't continue to govern.

But in a responsible government Parliarmentary system, the non-voting segment of the population is important and should be considered if a government is to be properly responsible.

How is the non-voting segment of the population to be considered? That's like saying a waiter has the responsibility to bring the correct meal to a person who refused to order.

We get the point, Ted, it's just not a very compelling point. You can't project your political views on to the people who don't have the minimal engagement required to get out and simply cast a vote. They have chosen to put themselves out of the game, so quit trying to claim them for your side.

Which is a simple point and is made in response to those who claim Canadians are behind or support Harper just because more support him than support Ignatieff/Dion/Martin.

They people who count – politically – are the people who vote. And the people who vote do, in fact, support Harper over any of the alternatives. That's a fairly simple concept. You and I may both decry the fact that more people can't be bothered to vote but the fact remains that those who don't vote, don't count.

I certainly don't think enough people from other countries read the Globe and Mail to the extent that it has any impact on foreign policy decisions of those countries whatsoever. Were his comments dumb? Yup. Is he suffering the political consequences of those comments? Yup. But I think the foreign policy of the actual government, which has actual official relations with other countries, caused us to lose the UN vote, for better or worse.

And, besides those ill-advised comments that got him in hot water, I'm not familiar with Ignatieff running down Canada. I don't agree with all or even most of the things he says, but the guy doesn't make a habit of sh*tcanning Canada, certainly no more than Harper did when he was in opposition.

I KNOW! I've used it three times today. Sometimes no other word will do.

If it were intended for a foreign audience, he'd have written a letter to the editor of the Wall St. Journal apologizing on behalf of Canadians for the country's foreign policy. That'd get some international attention. Otherwise, it's partisan spin to suggest Iggy's comments had anything to do with the voting. If I were Conservative, I'd be highlighting the fact that the UN voting system is all about you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours skullduggery which this government (wisely) chose not to play rather than spending my energy trying to pin it on Iggy. Regardless… we're never going to know why the UN voted the way they did. All we have is speculation, and that and a $1.72 will get me an extra-large at Tims.

As far as Iggy running down Canada… yeah, I'm just aware of typical domestic foreign-policy criticisms, and Harper did it before him… as did every other opp leader before him… In fact, I'd argue that Harper's anti-Canadian-government comments were much, much worse than anything Iggy ever said.

If leadership is marked by 'not talking one's country down before foreign audiences' then we've been 'not-a-leader-ed' for almost 5 years now.

LOL so now Iggy has to be silent just in case somebody from another country might read it?

A couple years ago during the Liberal leadership, a Liberal supporter told me she could not support Ignatieff because when he spoke she always felt uncomfortable when the pretension oozed out of him.

I usually trust a woman`s intuition in regards to people skills, so I`ll commend Claudia who has come up with as good an explanation as any I`ve heard about why Iggy will be a failure in a federal election—he turns you off and offends you.

Trust this woman intuition, he will never be PM!

He blew it, you might not like to hear that ,but he did. He will never get any votes, guess how much most Canadians care about that?

Wow, he accomplished all that with a minority government!

Takes even less to keep bleating a discredited slogan… and yet, here you remain.

Wow, this is an amazing coinkidink if I ever saw one: Emily, your description of the UN is word-for-word the exact same as Wikipedia's. It's like you're channeling all of Wikipedia's information like Keeanu Reeves in The Matrix, or something.

Perhaps if you actually thought about the issues instead of just repeating the pablum, you would realize that:

1) you utterly failed to answer my request, namely what "enormous good" has the UN done, you just cut & paste from wiki but you were completely unable to answer that question. It's because the UN has NEVER done 'enormous good'.

2) Im glad there hasnt been WW3 – this is despite the UN not thanks to the UN. The UN has never solved a crisis – NEVER.

3) What you want the UN to be, and what you think the UN ought to be, is different from what the UN actually is in the real world. This is difficult to swallow for some. These people are called various names: liberals, lefties, socialists and morons.

Yeah, I guess I should go and tell my future mother-in-law and former UN refugee from WWII Estonia that the UN does nuthin'…just a buncha feel good hooey.

A good friend of mine was doing refugee resettlement for the UN a few years ago in Southeast Asia. He was informed by his UN superior that he was doing his job too quickly and efficiently, and that doing so risked them having their budget reduced, and possibly losing their jobs. So he was urged to be less quick and efficient in processing said refugees.

That is the UN in a nutshell.

Nice. Reminds me of my summer job with the Canadian Government.

I do believe the borders are still open. You're free to leave if you don't like it.

No it isn't. It's human nature in a nutshell. Unless you want to extend the judgement to all the UN on such flimsy evidence…but you just did. [ i'm being a bit contrary here since i suspect most large organizations have similar faults]

Well good on the UN for doing that job. I will note however that the particular version of the UN which helped your mother-in-law-to-be was a UN in infancy, as yet uncorrupted by the inevitable backroom dealings which characterize much of its existence.

I also note that its unclear why an assembly of 192 nations is needed to process refugees.

And thats the real issue: Im all in favour of international institutions doing good work around the globe, but not the UN.

It is corrupt and ineffective, because it treats the governments of 192 nations essentially as equals. It's a fiction and a dangerous one at that.

In Canada and other developed nations, the government reflects the popular will, at least to a certain extent. Not so in many developing countries where the government represents a ruling junta or the tribe and family of the dictator-du-jour. What bleeding-hearts need to realize is that giving legitimacy to such governments at the UN only hurts the poor of these developing countries.

Not all governments of these 192 countries are equals. This is not about culture and your attempt to make it about culture is really transparent and pathetic.

Some are tyrannical despots and some are democratically elected. The UN runs on the pretense that Kim Jong Il has the same legitimacy as Harper. That's extremely dangerous and that's why the UN is a useless relic of a bygone era.

Well, Harper hasn't insulted the Marshall Islands…..yet.

Congratulations….most people need several drinks to be this silly in public.

LOL don't blame me for your turnip IQ