HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:35:09 GMT

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.

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.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:36:15 GMT

In article <C0JD3K.AK@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>Yesterday, I heard a rumour that Jean Chretien would step down because of
>his health within the next little while. Is there any credence to that? If
>he steps down and MUlroney steps down, the elction is wide open. Audrey does
>not have a chance - Bob Rae killed it for her.

I had someone mention to me Chretien's health problems over a year
ago as a possible reason why he may step down and I heard it again
from someone a couple of weeks ago, it may be something that would
allow Chretien to step down with
some dignity rather than have him go down as the result of a revolt (a
la Joe Clark).  Just a guess, but I believe that this is likely if
Mulroney steps down.  Imagine the outcome: two leadership conventions
and an election in quick succession, things could get really wild!




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Those frugal Tories and the damn poor and jobless
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:22:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
|> 
|> In article <93009.1617472893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
|> >Subject line speaks for itself. People voting Reform as a protest could end up
|> >with a Tory/Reform majority government if the Tories are able to recover even
|> >modestly in the polls.
|> 
|> So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
|> And the BQ are separatists. What a pathetic collection of heroes you can
|> choose from.
|> 
|> Mulroney's greatest crime is that he isn't a real conservative and hasn't
|> made the fundamental changes that Canada needs. This country should wake
|> up and smell the coffee. Any party that believes that government spending
|> can solve Canada's problems is just going to make things worse. 
|> 
Now one would think from this that the Tories have been really frugal and its
all because of social spending we're in the mess we are.  Might I remind you of
the cadillac choppers the Tories want to buy to kill Soviet subs?  Or how about
Hibernia?

Of course social spending is way up - the Tories have thrown more people out of
jobs with their economic policies than the Great Recession did.  I'm not saying
there wouldn't have been problems anyway but the Tories have really screwed the
pooch with their response to the economic problems we have.

A 'real' conservative such as Mr. Scrooge would, I assume, get rid of all social
spending on the grounds that is the poors' own fault that they haven't got a job.
Strange isn't it that a 'real' conservative also supports tax cuts for the rich? 
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 06:02:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.043803.4113@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Mulroney will be leaving soon one way or another, whether he wins or
>loses...even in the scenario of a slim Mulroney majority, which is
>considered an impossible scenario, he would only likely stay on for
>a couple of years.

You keep stating this.  Do you have any evidence, or is this just
speculation on your part?

Certainly, I do find it hard to understand why Mulroney would quit after
a victory, when he refuses to quit now, facing almost certain defeat.
(Well, I can see a reason - his ego, which refuses to accept defeat.
But it is precisely his ego that I find so dangerous in the man!  And
would his ego really allow him to abandon power?)

Mulroney must go.  To me, that is the one certainty in the cloudy
political scene today.  (Just as the time came when Trudeau had to go -
and I was a supporter of Trudeau.)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:49:14 GMT

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.

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


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:18:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175345.27765@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>But nothing is solved unless the Liberals are denied a majority...
>we can clean out the barn, as Ross Perot, might say, as long as
>Chretien is denied a majority government.
>
>Look what happened in the last provincial election when the voters
>to cavalierly just voted against Peterson without carefully checking
>whether the opposition party they were voting for had any coherent
>policies.
>
>The purpose of the next election should be to attempt to achieve
>a result that forces the three major parties to have leadership
>conventions.

I believe that what people see as the problem is less to do with
leaders (though some make-overs for both major parties would help them
in the polls) but with what is generraly viewed as leaders who are not
really accountable to their constituents; that is, the system is
flawed.  Borrowing from Perot, how's this for an idea:  at least once
a month have the Prime Minister and the leaders of the two top parties
in opposition present on CBC what they feel has been happening in the
last month, their views on gov't policies (why good or bad), etc and
then allow people to phone in and question the leaders.  A kind of
electronic town hall meeting.  Should allow the PM to be a leader (and
allay BM's fears about accountability) while letting people feel they
do have some accountability in gov't.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:50:11 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Distribution: can
 <J578wB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>

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.
>>
>> Gerald

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.

>
>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.
>
>
>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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:14:58 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

  

>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.

IMHO that is wishful thinking taken to the extreme. Recent experience
in BC shows that all the opposition has to do is *nothing* when up
against a hated/incompetent government. The NDP/Harcourt just sat
around and waited for the Zalm/Socreds to self-destruct.

The provincial liberals *lead* the NDP in the polls despite the
drubbing the BC media have laid on the Gordon Wilson Liberals, and
almost no policy alternatives offered.

Thats how the Tories got in in 84. Thats how the Ontario NDP got in.

If I was a Liberal and Jean Chretien started opening his mouth and
started debating policy I'd sue him for gross negligence.

The Liberals will win the next election if Chretien stays away from
policy debates and allows the voters to vote out the hated Tories.

The Liberals can avoid losing votes to the NDP by pointing out the
icompetence of the NDP in Ontario and BC.

And finally the Liberals can reap the benefit of a Reform party strong
enough to pull lots of votes from die hard tories types and not strong
enought to appeal to middle/left voters.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: The next federal election (was Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:36:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.154342.536@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>That's funny.  I don't consider the Tories, Reform, or National Party as
>real alternatives.  Right now my options are Liberals, NDP, or a fringe
>party like the Greens - not because I really like them, but as the
>lesser evils.
>
>I would likely vote Tory if they ditched Mulroney, but there's no way
>I'll vote for the man, or for a party stupid enough to keep such an
>unpopular leader.  (Of course, that would depend who they pick to
>replace him.)
>
>Hmm, since I'm Monarch of Canada, maybe I should just fire all the party
>leaders, dissolve the parties, and start all over . . .  :-)

I believe the original statement (the NDP not being viewed as a viable
alternative) by Gerald was regarding the population in general and
cannot possibly account for every individual in society, even if that
individual has the stature of a Monarch! 8^)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:51:48 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>

The problem with voting Reform in the west as a protest is that enough Reform
seats will result in a Tory-Reform majority coalition.
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: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:05:07 GMT

In article <schuck.726444983@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Do you think that ALL of the bills proposed in Parliament come
>>exclusively out of Brian Mulroney's imagination?  I think it hardly
>>possible.  He hasn't got enough time in the mere 24 hours available to
>>him each day.
>
>I guess I should have clarified my statement by sayinging she doesn't
>have any policies of her own "in public".
>
>Who knows what ideas she has in Cabinet because of Cabinet secrecy.
>
>She may have hundreds or none.
>
>She could be the most brilliant idea person to ever get elected or the
>most total drone ever elected. She's never shown much indication of
>either "in public".

If she winds up making a run at the leadership of the PCs, I expect
we'll find out some answers to these questions.  She could be
clueless, but there's not enough information available to fairly
evaluate ANYTHING here.

>>If you had suggested the "taint" of having been associated with an
>>unpopular Brian Mulroney would hurt Campbell, I'd have to agree.  I
>>might disagree on the degree to which it would affect Campbell, but
>>not that it could be a problem.  However, you never suggested that
>>THAT would be the problem.
>
>Why bother. We were talking leadership chances, not electability.
>
>The Tories are too detested to get re-elected.

Brian Mulroney is "too detested to get re-elected."  If he steps down,
the whole ball game changes rather a lot.

Along the same lines, here's some other possible difficulties:

"The NDP are too left-wing to get elected.  And after the Ontario
experience, nobody need worry about them federally..."

"The Reform Party has too little support in the East to get elected."

"Chretien's too disliked in Quebec to get votes there.  And the anglos
think he's too French."

Between the various levels of hatred/dislike/prejudice associated with
the whole gamut of political parties in Canada, it is difficult to
tell just what is likely to happen in the next federal election.
The Tories may not be too popular, but nobody else is actually
POPULAR; they're just "less disliked."

There's a theory out there that the only person in Canada capable of
getting a MAJORITY government is BM the current PM.  I don't know
about that - but I do have this suspicion that none of the major
competitors are capable of doing better than a minority government.

When the Conservatives start getting ready for the next election, I
fully expect things to look QUITE different from the way they do now.
In what ways?  I haven't the slightest.  I'm sure that something will
happen.  The PC's would be STUPID to go into an election without doing
SOMETHING.

-- 
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: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:24:28 GMT

In article <schuck.726824828@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>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.

Well, if my house burns down in the next little while, I know who to
look for!  :-)

(It's OK, you don't have to burn my house - I don't work for the
government.  It's the split level with red siding - you can't miss it!)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:16:42 GMT

In article <#Jf=NL+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>
>I have plenty of problems with the Nazi government of Germany.
>My personal feelings are largely irrelevent, however, to a
>discussion of the legitimacy of that regime.  The regime was
>illegitimate because it offended "common decency", which is
>another term for the morality of the people in general.
>

But the Nazi government of Germany had broad popular support for
a significant duration of time...
it did not offend the "common" decency of the people.

>That's all I'm arguing.  Gov'ment is legitimate to the extent
>that it respects common decency.
>

Common decency is just saying, as you were essentially saying before,
that majoritarianism is sufficient...it is not.

Government is legitimate when it respects individual rights, and
in particular, the right to express political dissent.

>You don't "know" it since it isn't so. It's simple logical 
>constraints:
>
> 1-The government is legitimate only if it has the support
>   of the people.  
>       ~legit(X) <= ~support(X) 
> 2-The people only support democracy.
>       ~support(X) <= X <> democracy
> 3-Thus, any form of government other than democracy is 
>   illegitimate.
>       ~legit(X) <= X <> democracy.
>
>(1) is from my definition.  (2) is a premise that applies to
>western populations.  (3) is the resolvent of (1) with (2).
>If the people support some form other than democracy (that is,
>if (2) is not true), then that other form can also be the 
>basis for a legitimate government.
>

Western civilization, since Locke and Jefferson anyway, would
really replace (2) with the principle of popular sovereignty...
which would make (3) more correctly...any legitimate form of
government must respect popular sovereignty...limited democracy 
is one such form...you are free to suggest others which might.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Quebec/repressed liberties
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:16:58 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1191

From article <726432203.AA04151@illusion.tpg.org>, by Yvon.Decelles@f420.n514.z17.illusion.tpg.org (Yvon Decelles):
>
> .....
> 
>   Perhaps your friends are not or were not aware that they could have
>   the school ask for the document themselves. Saves a lot of headache.
> 

There shouldn't be any need to go through this crap to get access to the
schooling of ones choice in the first place!

> 
>   I think that the problem exist mostly for immigrant and for people who
>   do not know how the system works. I'm not saying it's their fault just
>   that it's not as bad as it looks.
> 

Who are you to judge?

It is bad enough for the families affected! :-(((((

Are you suggesting that problems for immigrants (and citizens who landed
after 1977!!) are nothing to be concerned about? Perhaps because they
are not "pure-wool" Quebecers? :-((((

You are standing on thin ice, Yvon!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 04:22:14 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>[The same damn nonsense three times!]

I guess my news server just decided that, since it was going to
be the last post on scc, I should get my money's worth.

Not that I'm paying for this access.

Perhaps I should just apologize and get out.

Sorry...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: The next federal election (was Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:43:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.110729.12481@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>There choice in the next election is a lesser of evils choice...I've
>narrowed it down to the choice of three poisons...Tories, Reform, and
>the National...(the National Party probably has the best policy for
>democratic reforms, even though their economic policy is ridiculous)...
>but the only choices are the status quo, or a protest vote, to attempt
>to deny any single party a majority...and those are the three best
>choices for doing that.
>
>The Liberals and the NDP are not real alternatives...

That's funny.  I don't consider the Tories, Reform, or National Party as
real alternatives.  Right now my options are Liberals, NDP, or a fringe
party like the Greens - not because I really like them, but as the
lesser evils.

I would likely vote Tory if they ditched Mulroney, but there's no way
I'll vote for the man, or for a party stupid enough to keep such an
unpopular leader.  (Of course, that would depend who they pick to
replace him.)

Hmm, since I'm Monarch of Canada, maybe I should just fire all the party
leaders, dissolve the parties, and start all over . . .  :-)

   Rhealist I - nadeau@bnr.ca - Monarchs don't need disclaimers
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Party
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:16:56 GMT

In article <19448@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>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?
>

Hurtig's new paperback on the National Party "A New and Better Canada"
is now in bookstores, at least in Toronto...the number given in the
book is 1-800-565-8673...

8673:TNSF--True North Strong (and) Free

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.

And I advocate voting anything but Liberal in the next election...
choose your poison, as long as it isn't Chretien.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory