HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Subject: Re: Can the Tories get re-elected?
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:39:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175407.23666@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
>I have been reading the thread on Kim Campbell and her chances for the 
>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. 
>

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)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:55:46 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca> <93009.1804012893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan10.031508.1286@csi.uottawa.ca>

There's a difference between what Communists say socialism  isand what
socialists say communism is. This is my understanding, Classical marxists want
the abolition of capitalism and it's replacement with a system run by and for
the working class. Socialists want this done through parliament and by
democratic evolution, Communists want it done through violent revolution.

The NDP is not in favour of violent revolution and thus are not Communists,
further more, the NDP does not call for the aboliton of capitalism but for
making capitalism more equitable, thus they are not Marxists and in the
Marxist use of the phrase they are not socialists but social democrats.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
Originator: mackenzi@quetzalcoatl.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:25:56 GMT


In article <ow1XwB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
|> Perhaps it would be easier to visualize the total spectrum as a circle 
|> rather than as a straight line. Starting at the centre, to the left you'd 
|> find the NDP somewhat left, then the Greens and some of the eco-types, 
|> then the Communists (if there are any left) then the Maoists, Trots, etc.
|> Starting at the centre again, going to the right, you'd find, 
|> considerably right, the Liberals, somewhat further right the
|> Conservatives, Social Credit, Reform Party, any U.S. political party, and 
|> then considerably further, the fascists, nazis, KKK and their ilk.

I really have never understood why nazis and the KKK were considered right
wing.  First of all, they are based on hatred, not freedom.  Secondly,
even a cursory scan of old Nazi policies will show that much of it is
very similar to communism, but instead of saying "for the people" they
say "for the state."  The Nazis claimed to recognize the rights of people
to own land and businesses.  HA!  All in appearance, since they either
took over these lands (if the owners were ethnically unsuitable) or they
just controlled the use of the land (which makes ownership in name only).

True right wing is laissez-faire capitalism, which to my knowledge has never
been actually implemented.

--Paul

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 04:25:14 GMT

In article <schuck.726259754@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>What do you think of the Cabinet Shuffle?
>
>I think it was a thinly veiled attack on Kim Campbell, because of all
>the media attention showered on her lately.

Well, perhaps having an "easier" portfolio will:

a) Provoke sympathy?
b) Give time to prepare for a leadership campaign?

>I think Brian has someone else in mind for his successor, 
>and shuffling Campbell off to defence will keep her out of the limelight.

Well, one thing of which I am ABSOLUTELY certain: They're celebrating
at DND:HQ tonight over the departure of Marcel Masse.

Campbell's predecessor, the "hatchetman," finally got dumped from the
cabinet, and I'll bet that Departments across Ottawa are heaving sighs
of relief that THEY won't get stuck with him.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:10:51 GMT

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.

I take it you have a problem with that?

I think Reform would keep the Tories in check, by speeding up the restructuring
and cuts needed in government ministries, and in reducing pork barrel, 
bogus regional development money wasting.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:37:15 GMT

dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:

>The statement was made that the Tories were too despised to get re-elected.

>I beg to disagree. It is Mulroney who is too hated to get re-elected. If the
>Tories had bad economic policy why would Wilson, Mazankowski, and Clarke
>have great reputations in other countries? 

What relevance is that?

Gorbachev had a great reputation in the World and the Russians kicked
his ass out of office. Trudeau was liked/respected outside Canada and
despised in Canada and we decimated the Liberals in 84 because we
despised him and his party for keeping him around toooo long.

>Quite frankly, we are in danger
>of throwing out the "baby with the bathwater" as the policies were good but
>the leader has been shown to be wanting.

The leader can't get his policies implemented without support in the
Cabinet, Caucus and the house. The Tories should be turfed because
they loyally supported Mulroney *and* for some disastrous economic and
immigration policies.

It's an exagerration to compare the two, but Hitler didn't run the 3rd
Reich alone. He had lots of help and support from Himmler, Goering, 
Bormman and lots of others.

Clark and Mazankowski and Campbell and all of them should be turfed
for supporting Mulroney and his/their policies.



Newsgroups: can.politics
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Is it Dr. Kim Campbell
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:34:21 GMT

Our new minister of defence stresses that she is no Joanie come lately
to the field of security, having been a Ph.D. student of Soviet
Affairs at LSE.

Did she in fact graduate with a doctorate?
-- 
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba        | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Reply-To: rcano@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:55:04 GMT

In article <schuck.726824828@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> 
|> Voting for one party or the other will *not* reform the system.
|> 
|> Canadians should stop being sheep [myself included] and do the only
|> thing that will truly reform the system -- burn Ottawa to the ground,
|> and start over somewhere else.
|> 
|> Nothing less will change the system.
|> 
|> PS In case of government monitoring, I do not *really* recommend
|>    the above course of action. :) Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Ottawa is a nice place, and not all people here are government types.

What we need to do is to stop looking at party when choosing our MPs.
If the voters would look at the candidates, and vote for the best
one regardless of party, we might end up with a better government.
The advantages would be:
  - MPs would not have to depend on party as much (if at all) and
    would more likely be willing to defy party line.
  - The party which gets the most competant people elected would
    form the government.
  - We would have fewer ridings where a certain party could 
    run a jackass and have it win.
  - MPs would know they have to impress the voters back home, not
    the party brass to retain their seats.

The disadvantage is that people would have to get off their asses
and actually think before they vote, instead of depending on
10 second sound bites on the evening news.

If you want to reform the system, you have to start with the
base of the system, the voters. 
-- 
Bob Cano           Bell-Northern Research    | When all else fails,   
rcano@bnr.ca       P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C     | read the instructions.
                   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   | 
(613)763 4086      K1Y 4H7                   |   
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:26:05 GMT

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
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


Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:12:10 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The next federal election
 <1993Jan8.175345.27765@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <1993Jan8.223551.11701@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
 <1993Jan9.004910.19040@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <93009.0051482893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.726593709@sfu.ca>

In article <schuck.726593709@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan
Schuck) says:
>
>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.
>
>Ha ha ha. The tories aren't going to win enough seats in Alberta to
>hold a convention in a phone booth.

Since when do federal elections occur only in Alberta?

That's the whole point! Reformers and the odd Tory elected in the West
when combined with Tories elected in Quebec and (assuming BM has been replaced)
in Ontario and Atlantic Canada could well lead to a Tory/Reform majority govt.

>
>I'm not sure how many seats in BC, but the tories are going to have
>real trouble here. The NDP are despised provincially, the tories are
>despised federally....I think the Liberals may take BC bigtime
>*unless* lots of people vote reform. I think the tories may be wiped
>out in BC, and it's hard to form a coalition with no seats.

Once again, federal elections do not only occur in BC and Alberta.
>
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: UI Benfits Cut
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.222032.28166@freenet.carleton.ca>
	aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch) writes:

>Self employed people do pay UIC premiums.

Absolutely false.

If you're self-employed, that is, you receive no T4 slips from anyone
and must calcluate your own income, you neither pay nor can collect UIC.
Canada Pension Plan contributions are determined at the time of your annual
tax filing, but UIC is not a part of that. I speak from seven years of
working this way, and an accountant who tells me this is exactly the case.

>In fact they pay more
>than if they were employed by a compnay...company.

I'm curious to know upon what experience you base this. Who in
particular is the "they" to whom you refer? Certainly not me, and
certainly not any of the colleagues I know in the same situation.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
What's with all this multimedia stuff? Most vendors can't get *one* done right.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:33:10 GMT

In article <J578wB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>> Socialism is ideologically incompatible with limited democratic
>> government based on individual rights.  Social democracy or democratic
>> socialism is at best social majoritarianism and only transiently
>> stable.  Democracy is ultimated rooted in the idea of popular
>> sovereignty, and that individuals have rights, both concepts which
>> are at odds with socialism who see the state as the holder of 
>> sovereignty and the dispenser of privileges...rights having no
>> existence.  A socialist government can be dressed up to look
>> like it is compatible with democracy temporarily...mixing democracy
>> and socialism is like mixing oil and water.
>> 
>> Gerald
>
>This is more of your right wing fantasy world, Gerald. It's YOUR
>concept that "socialism sees the state as the holder of sovereignity". 
>It's easy to knock down phoney straw men you set up yourself. One of 
>the precepts of socialism that draws many of it's adherents is a 
>fundamental respect for ALL individuals, not just those with power
>and money. 
>
Oh gee, I see it now!

Socialists care about individual rights! So *that's* why they entrench
collective rights, which override and oppress the individual; and why
they are after special privileges, quotas. That's why they take away
secret ballots and ingnore individuals who present cases against
unions; after all the individual doesn't count; the collective,
the union, the government knows what's better for those stubborn
individuals who just make trouble.


BTW, I seen several articles (not all from you) that say:

'Socialists say they don't want to overthrow capitalism, therefore
they aren't communists etc.' This is total nonsense: what they SAY
they want, and what we'll GET under social-democracy are totally 
different things. To paraphrase, the road to communism, totalitarianism etc.
is paved with good intentions...


>
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
>Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
>instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Where did all the left wingers go??? : -)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:46:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.234817.15600@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>Except for one or two, all the socialists seem to be hiding... 
>too bad, no one to beat up verbally any more :)
>
>Seems the conservatives, objectivists, libertarians, 'Reagan Democrats'
>rat pack (they know who they are) has scared them away (no great loss :-)
>
>(PS, I think Chuck and Gerry should keep their bickering private, definitely
>Bad Form, old sport. All this damn bickering whilst the bolshies are readying
>the firing squad....tsk tsk)
>

If you view the debate "linearly", it might seem perhaps that certain
individuals should "close ranks", but the problem and the debate is
really more "two-dimensional", or even "three-dimensional", with
a "liberty-collectivist" axis, an "economic (capitalism-socialism)"
axis, and a "methodological (fundamentalist-scientific{empirical})
axis....
and that only one of the eight octants is really desirable or should
be preferred.

Gerald
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:57:19 GMT

In article <93010.1550112893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <J578wB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca says:
>>
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>> Socialism is ideologically incompatible with limited democratic
>>> government based on individual rights.  Social democracy or democratic
>>> socialism is at best social majoritarianism and only transiently
>>> stable.  Democracy is ultimated rooted in the idea of popular
>>> sovereignty, and that individuals have rights, both concepts which
>>> are at odds with socialism who see the state as the holder of
>>> sovereignty and the dispenser of privileges...rights having no
>>> existence.  A socialist government can be dressed up to look
>>> like it is compatible with democracy temporarily...mixing democracy
>>> and socialism is like mixing oil and water.
>>>
>
>In fact, the Marxist concept of socialism is one of direct democracy by the
>people instead of rule by the wealthy. "Council Socialism" advocated by
>Luxembourg and for a time by Lenin is a concept that people should directly
>elect representatives to their council which in turn would elect reps to
>a regional council and ultimately to a national council with recall possible
>at any time, and with reps going back to their constituents for guidance.
>
>Thus instead of election every 5 years there would be a constant, ongoing
>process of almost direct democracy. Lenin ended up shelving this concept
>but that only makes him less a socialist than his supporters claimed. The
>essence of socialism is not state control, that is a Leninist and Stalinist
>concept, but of workers' democracy.
>

You have only mentioned the majoritarian part of "limited democracy".
Limited democracy includes a mechanism for political dissent against
the tyranny of the majority...and this is based on individual rights.
Limited democracy recognizes that the majority can do most things,
but not everything...socialism, even in a majoritarian form, fails
the test because it fails to recognize that individual right are 
necessary, that a mechanism for political dissent against the possible
tyranny of the majority is necessary.  Socialism is incompatible
with democracy as we understand it, the right to vote and individual
rights, because socialism reject the notion that individual rights
exist.  The right to vote by itself is not sufficient.


Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:23:28 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <1993Jan10.222143.12528@julian.uwo.ca> <93010.1835102893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan11.033446.24974@julian.uwo.ca> <93010.2300022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <93010.2300022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
             [ vast nonsensical diatribes deleted ]

>Ah, eugenics, what a pleasent Nazi concept you espouse.

If you really think your interlocuter espouses naziism, why do you
bother with him? And if you don't, why accuse him of it?

Personally, I avoid responding to random sense noise, particularly
when the person concerned reacts to their errors by disowning them with
a smiley. You have two choices with someone who wants a rise out of
you: ignore, or make sure you get as much fun out of the encounter as
they do.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rick@sq.sq.com (Rick Innis)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 14:40:32 GMT

In article <schuck.726453463@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>If the vote is splite up by the BQ in Quebec and Reform in Alberta,
>the Liberals will only need 38 - 40 % for a majority government.
>
>A 5 way race will make it easier for the Liberals to win. 

Point of information: I recall seeing in the Globe&Mail (exact date I can't
recall, but sometime in December I think) that the Tories could conceivably
get re-elected with only 28% of the vote.

	--Rick.

-- 
Rick Innis
SoftQuad Inc.           "Have you seen the secret of the Universe?"  said 
rick@sq.com             Zebedee, arriving.  "I know I left it here somewhere."
+1 (416) 239 4801
Newsgroups: can.politics