HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:44:08 GMT

A number of people have expressed a desire for a minority government.
Whereas I would agree that a minority situation might be more likely to
keep a government honest in a certain respect, it also seems to me that it
could be the worst of all possible worlds. As I see it, with a minority
government, not only will the government be shoveling handouts to its
friends as is the usual case, but in addition the party that is keeping the
government in power will also be able to direct various forms of pork to
its supporters - thus, we see more than the usual amount of pork barreling.
As well, it will be almost impossible for a minority government to make
many of the hard decisions that will have to be made this decade.  For
example: Would a minority government be able to close a sizable number of
military bases? Would a minority government be able to pull the plug on
Hibernia? It's a new world out there, and I have doubts that a minority
government would have the ability to lead us into it. I suspect that a
minority government would simply do as little as possible to rock the boat.

On a separate topic, a number of people have also expressed the belief that
the BQ will elect a large number of Quebec MPs. Well, on CTV's Question
Period today (Sunday, Jan 10) Craig Oliver had on  3 political reporters.
One of them was Don Braid (Calgary Herald, I believe), one was from the
Globe and Mail (somebody Coyne), and a third who I did not recognize and
cannot remember the name of. All three said the same thing wrt the BQ;
namely that the high degree of support that that party is now enjoying
will evaporate on election day as Quebecers repeat the pattern they have
exhibited on past occasions and vote for the party that they think will be
able to provide the most positive results for Quebec, i.e., the party that
will form the government.  And since the BQ not only has no chance of
forming the government, but also is unlikely to have any influence in a
minority government, the BQ will not receive Quebec's vote to any great
extent. I thought that this was a convincing argument, but it should be
noted that all three reporters were from CHQ and thus could be guilty of
not correctly reading the mood in La Belle Province.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.followup
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Quebec/repressed liberties
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:57:20 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 570

From article <1993Jan8.095344.12773@spxtech.qc.ca>, by steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter):
>
> .....
> 
> Don't forget, I said the fact that para 23(1)(a) is not applicable in Quebec
> and chapter vii of Bill 101 ...
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
      chapter viii   [sorry!]
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:00:54 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The next federal election
 <1993Jan9.004910.19040@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <93009.0051482893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan10.012605.12831@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

In article <1993Jan10.012605.12831@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:
>
>In article <93009.0051482893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>The problem with voting Reform in the west as a protest is that enough Reform
>>seats will result in a Tory-Reform majority coalition.
>
>If not Reform, out West, then choose the NDP or the National
>Party...but don't vote Liberal...in Ontario, though, its slightly
>dangerous to vote for the NDP, considering what happened in the
>last provincial election.
>
>I don't particulary think a Tory-Reform coalition would be very
>stable...the whole point of the next election should be to deny
>Chretien a majority, which will then force all three parties to
>get new leaders, and we would then have a second election within

We have had a number of minority Parliaments and provincial legislatures,
never in my recollection has this resulted in all three main parties getting
new leaders.

>a few years, if not sooner, having cleaned out the barn, and an
>election based more on issues, rather than just throwing the
>bums out.  Replacing Mulroney with a Chretien majority would
>be a catastrophe for Canada.
>
>Gerald
>
>
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: Can the Tories get re-elected?
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:54:07 GMT

I have been reading the thread on Kim Campbell and her chances for the 
winning the Tory leadership. It inspired one comment .... sorry, don't 
remember who .... that said the Tories were too hated to be elected 
again.

I have a question .... is it the Tories or merely Brian Mulroney? I 
think that this is a legitimate question. If I recall correctly a poll 
done recently suggested that if Joe Clark was Tory leader that the 
Tories would have a small lead over the Liberals. Does anyone else 
remember this poll? Am I correct? If this is true maybe Kim Campbell 
could win an election. 

If Lyin' Brian stays I'm afraid that there will be a Hatfield type 
slaughter. The mood in Canada is reminiscent of the hatred that people 
had for Hatfield here in New Brunswick in 1987 when the PCs were wiped 
from the provincial electoral map.

Any comments?


Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
From: neal@writer.yorku.ca (Neal Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Computer Assisted Writing Centre, York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:59:25 GMT

In article <C0FKzI.IsD@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>Kim Campbell would be a disaster as a leader - she does not have a value
>system which would make her positive towards family or give her true
>Christian sense as to what is right or wrong. Therefore if she is being
>shuffled out (which I don't think is true) it would be quite positive for
>the future of Canada.
Ahemmm,........
I really don't know if this article has been posted as a serious
attempt at experiencing the net "flames " of hell.
Suffice it is to say at least _extremely_ presumptuous of you Doug, to
state that Kim Campbell does not have a value system which would make
her positive towards the family or give her true Christian sense as to
what is right or wrong.
Please, I am open to discussion and debate in a thoughtful, humourous,
civilized and engaging way.  I will admit to being an atheist in the
religious sphere, but with a firm set of morals, guides and checks to
be viewed as an upstanding member of the this or I think most
communities.
I care about my fellow person and I try to help out in what ways I
can.
People forget that this is a motivating factor in going into public
service, eg. cabinet minister.  The cynical and conspiratorial side to
my brain tells me that there are self serving members of government,
at all levels, who are corrupt and can be "bad" (tm)
But Doug, this posting of yours needs fleshing out by:
1) Stating what exactly do cite as examples of Campbell's abscence of
a positive value system in the work she has sponsored in the Justice
Department.
2) Why does a "true Christian sense as to what is right or wrong" have
as a guideline?  Why can't a benevelent Buddhist sense of right or
wrong be better or worse?  Why not Judaic?  Zorastrian?  Please,
explain why there must be a link between a theological belief
structure and the powers inherit with the state position of any
cabinet post?
3)What are your goals man!  Tell us what do you envision as a goal for
someone in government to enact out onto ALL the people, with out
pluralistic society as it is right now, give or take rising and
falling powerful interest groups of the immediate day having some
sway.

Please Doug (et. al. on the net) let us debate with a premise,
statement of fact and come to a conclusion.  Debates _ad hominum_ are
always done on the net.  To its detriment.  That is why generally I
have to hit `n' so often to remove the cack of general babble I see
daily.

"Mister Worf, engage tractor beam and pull the discussion in and raise
the shields."

Aye sir.

Make it so, and engage debate mode.

Cheers, Doug....
Neal Stephenson
neal@writer.yorku.ca

"Cosmic is largely comic...." Neal Peart  "Anagram (For Mongo)"


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:26:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.204250.9804@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.192748.2875@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>It is not as if the minority government would last very long...it won't
>>have time to be an extremely bad government.  What we need is a real
>>policy debate and a new set of leaders to engage in that policy debate,
>>so in the second election which would follow relatively soon after,
>>Canadians could make an enlightened decision about the direction they
>>want the country to take, and not burden the country with an incompetent
>>leader like Chretien for 5 years at such a crucial time in our history.
>
>I wish I could share your confidence that this would give us better
>candidates.  Unfortunately, the trend is towards blandness, towards
>looking the right way on TV and saying the things the pollsters tell
>them to say.  This is not likely to give us "a real policy debate".
>
>Who do you think would replace Chretien?  Who would replace Mulroney?
>Would you really feel that an election between Kim Campbell and Sheila
>Copps would be much of an improvement?  (Or if the grits go for an
>outsider, we'd wind up with Paul Martin - again, I'm far from convinced
>this would be an improvement - the man is a virtual Mulroney clone!)
>

Actually, an election between Kim Campbell and Sheila Copps in two
years, after the relative ineffectiveness of Clintonomics, would be
an improvement...in some sense, any new set of leaders would also
be less than ideal, but I think a Campbell/Martin or a Campbell/McKenna
contest would be infinitely more issues oriented than anything we
are likely to see from the dinosaur puppet currently leading the
Liberal Party. 

If the major parties do not offer new leadership soon, than the
new parties are going to become a threat...the major parties have
to demonstrate that they are capable of a slow transformation to
the new realities, or else they will be abandoned.  Modern media
does mean new parties, well-led can emerge quickly...one only need
look at the Reform and Perot phenomena, and I think that Hurtig will
and the National Party will be more successful than people think,
especially if the Liberal Party does not cut Hurtig off at the
pass by getting a credible leader.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Democratic Socialism, the final word? (was Re: NDP "communism?")
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:24:45 GMT

The following is a quote from Patricia Marchak, a Socialist scholar
and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at UBC.  It is her definition of
democratic socialism, hopefully all engaged on this thread will accept
it as valid so we can get onto something constructive (sheesh,
remember when this thread was talking about Kim Campbell):

	Social democrats accept the basic values of liberalism but
        place more emphasis on equality.  As well, they recognize the
        existence of classes, of class barriers, and of governments
	acting in the interests of a dominant or ruling class.  They
	thus share some of the understandings of socialists.  They are
        committed to the gradual and democratic evolution of a
        socialist society, which they understand to be a more
        egalitarian organization within which workers have decision-making
	control over production, and private ownership rights over
        industrial units and natural resources are abolished.  This is
        the position of various democratic socialist parties
        throughout the world, and of the CCF and NDP parties (Marchuk
	in Tepperman and Curtis, 1992: 64).


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:44:37 GMT

I expressed an opinion about the promotion/demotion of Kim Campbell a couple
of days ago and two people have asked me to clarify. I was simply referring
to Kim Campbell's constant inablitity to get along with the Family Caucus of
the P.C. party as a basis for my belief that she is unable to bring to her
job the moral fortitude to be a good PM. She has come into conflict with
them over homosexual rights, abortion, and even the rape shield law. Her own
marriage has fallen through the cracks. I know that the latter is not
politically correct to bring up but it seems that when Brian was elected,
Mila affected that. When Joe was elected, Maureen affected that. People
quite frankly liked one wife better than the other. Spouse does matter in
how one does their job. All the indications are that Kim Campbell has to
spell out her moral positions much more clearly. I am not questioning her
because I do not know her. I am saying that if she is to become a contender,
I for one would want to know alot more about her religious beliefs (which I
also feel are important for a good leader) and her philosophocal base. I
would alos like to know more about her in general.

One of the respondents was concerned that I had used the word Christian.
Yes, I did use that word as I personally believe in that value system.
However, I am not a close-minded Christian - I believe it would be better to
have someone who has a value system (whatever, Buddhism, Hindu, etc.) than
to not have any. Thus, my reasoning is to get Kim Campbell's supporters to
state what her value system is.

Habbakuk worried about the state of the country he was in and he wondered
why the punishment of the country was taking so long. Are we going to go
through the same wait here in North America only to be defeated by the
modern Chaldeans? I am not being fascetious but serious. Our moral fortitude
has not been the same since Trudeau or Mulroney brought their politics
before everything attitudes to government.

I want to say that I am not trying to flame anybody. I know there are those
who disagree with me and I am prepared to consider reasoned arguments.
However, too often I find the arguments (even the ones I sometimes make) are
not reasoned enough. I will look forward to responses.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:34:05 GMT

Isn't it interesting that you consider the Trudeau Liberals to be not left
of centre. How can you explain the HUGE increases in spending if they are
not left? How can you explain the FIRA and other intrusive regulatory
agencies? I used to think of the Liberal Party of Drury and Sharp as being
much more in favour of big business than the  Conservative Party which had
the characteristic of being for the small businessman (still prefers that
orientation to big business). The Liberal Party has driven out most of the
people like Drury and Sharp (either because of age or because they could not
get along with the likes of Axworthy and Gray). I would be ashamed to label
the present party anything but left. If Chretien wants to win and hold the
dollar from falling he will have to get many many more candidates to drown
out Copps, Gray and those other socialists.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Hurtig Sells Out (was Re: National Party
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:21:38 -0800
Distribution: can
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1993Jan10.021656.14257@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> I disagree with their economic nationalism, but they are for significant
> democratic reform...and they at least provide an alternative to voting
> Liberal or NDP for those who feel unable to vote Tory or Reform.

I was (and still am) a Council of Canadianer from the very
begining and feel that Mr. Hurtig has not exactly been honest
with us. 

All along the CoC was a non-partisan organisation which fought 
for a Canada which maintained its own identity in the world. 
Obviously, much of this effort focused on the Bilateral Free 
Trade Agreement (BFTA) and the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA). In the 1988 election Hurtig called for tactical 
voting - i.e., support the non-BFTA candidate in your riding that 
was most likely to defeat the pro-BFTA (Conservative) candidate.

As an NDPer who always considered Liberals were ones that 
iterated promises out of the left side of their mouths but spoke 
about government policy out of the right side of their mouths, 
this was a difficult concept for me to endorse. But endorse it I 
did: I remain a CoC supporter. (Note that the CoC is not 
restricted to the free trade debates, they have spoken out about 
Canadian culture, the CBC, the GST, etc.).

Much of what the CoC endorsed just happened to be NDP policy. At 
various times, depending on what day of the week it was, it also 
happened to be Liberal policy. So the CoC position of not 
endorsing one particular political party was a sound one. 

In recent months it has become very clear that *only* the NDP will
abrogate the BFTA and NFTA (and the GST...). The Liberals will
not. Logical response? Mr. Hurtig should endorse CoC supporters
et al., to vote NDP. What does he do? He forms his own political
party whose policies, apparently, by and large reflect those of
the NDP. 

Instead of splitting the vote, something Mr. Hurtig implored 
people to avoid in 1988, Mr. Hurting should swallow his pride and 
say "hey, maybe they were right after all... I am a democratic 
socialist... I am... NDP!"

In effect, Mel Hurtig *does not* provide a policy alternative to 
the NDP in terms of policy. It appears that Mr. Hurtig, who once 
ran for the Liberal Party, was really just a dissaffected Liberal 
all this time - not the non-partisan nationalist he pretended to 
be.

Doug Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson			"Only fools are positive."
Smithers, British Columbia	 Moe Howard
CANADA				
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Can the Tories get re-elected?
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:00:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.193906.5339@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER) writes:
>>
>
>I don't think the Tories will win the next election, regardless of who
>their leader is. The reason is that the BQ and RP have gained lots of
>power in two regions where the PC's were strong (Quebec and the
>prairies). The increase in power of these two parties will take more
>seats away from the Tories than the Liberals, which will ensure
>them at least a minority government.
>
>Brian Spencer (bspencer@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)

But this is based on the assumption that the Liberals will win
Ontario, if BM steps down then things change drastically.



Newsgroups: can.politics
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Subject: National Party
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:44:40 GMT

Yesterday I heard part of a CBC radio interview with Mel Hurtig, in which he
discussed what his new party was going to stand for, but he neglected to
mention where or how people might obtain detailed information about the
National Party. Does anyone have an address, phone # or fax #--or advice on
how to track one down?


--
Crawford Kilian   Communications Department   Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5
Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:42:23 GMT

Consider the following scenario which people on this newsgroup have
suggested. The Liberals win Ontario. The RP and BQ win big in their regional
areas. Won't the people in both Quebec and Alberta then feel that they are
being governed by Central Canada? Won't that lead to greater dissention in
the country than there is currently? Having lived in Alberta for three
years, I had the sense that separatism there could be viable - much more so
because of the economy and the orientation to the US than for Quebec.

Also, if people are guided by polls, I am not sure that those who live in
Ontario will want to vote for a party which would isolate them and the
Atlantic provinces from the rest of the country and that would be evident. I
am not sure if the election were being held that the Ontario voters would
stick by the Liberals if they saw that scenario building up.

I am often surprised when my students say things like - I hate that Mulroney
but really even though I won't say it to any polster, who else can I vote
for except the Conservatives. I don't know whether the polsters are
capturing the correct feelings either. It seems that Chretien is in as much
disregard as Mulroney - the difference is that the Liberals do not have a
cabinet - just as the NDP in Ontario did not have a cabinet and still don't.
Good government comes form considering more than the leader - too often we
are duped into only looking at the leader and not the party back of the
leader. Of course then I have never understood why such competent people in
the Conservative Party would back the leader they have but over and over
again they do - what is it that makes them do that?


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:37:16 GMT

In article <C0JCqD.1J@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>However, I am not a close-minded Christian - I believe it would be better to
>have someone who has a value system (whatever, Buddhism, Hindu, etc.) than
>to not have any.

Everyone has a value system.

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: can.politics