I wish our press had any sort of balls at all.

CN is right. We have pusillanimous press, and one that seems to adore the conservative party line.

People don't know the guy, so are worried about what he is really like. This does not bode well.

But its all about "access" to selective leaks and spin. That's why are media is afraid to do something.

The role of the press is to transcribe the pronouncements of the Leader and explain them, and the good reasons for them, to the People.

For them to do anything else, especially to ask impertinent questions or publish unsupportive or uncomfortable facts, is to show a lack of respect for the office, which could give aid and comfort the Enemy in a Time of War.

Thank heaven there are enough reporters at the Times, the Post, and especially on the Fox network, who understand this!

Can you even imagine such a thing happening here? It would immidiately be regarded as a partisan action rather than a reaction of the press to the government.

Canada. Is that like a country or something? Like their press though.

You know, this is one more reason Harper won't last long. They hired Bush's groomers to come shave off his Killer Fruit mustache (this guy is Terry Dolan, northland style) and squeak him past the electorate. But in a parliamentary system, you actually have to defend your positions in front of adversaries. It's haaaard work.

Blair has the personality (and a majority) to survive that, someone else we can think of south of the border doesn't. But HE has the benefit of royal status as far as the press and opposition are concerned. Maybe the Revolution wasn't so great after all.

Kevin, you might want to read the latest in today's Globe and Mail...especially if you want snark. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060526.wxharpermedia26/BNStory/National/home
And apparently, right now, the Globe and Mail is having a live Q&A on just this topic.
See also the editorial (which is by subscription only)

Good story, but this:

I really ought to pay more attention to what's happening in Canada

is breathtaking in its breezy arrogance.

Our press likes to dress up for balls (free crabcakes and chardonney ya know.) Does that count?

Canada is perhaps the most underreported country in America. It is incredible how little Americans, even those living near the border, know about their neighbor.

Don't you wish our press had the balls to do something like that?

Um yes, but you misspelled "integrity."

The role of the press is to transcribe the pronouncements of the Leader and explain them, and the good reasons for them, to the People.

For them to do anything else, especially to ask impertinent questions or publish unsupportive or uncomfortable facts, is to show a lack of respect for the office, which could give aid and comfort the Enemy in a Time of War.

Thank heaven there are enough reporters at the Times, the Post, and especially on the Fox network, who understand this!
Posted by: bleh on May 26, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAA
shut up.
Where I come from respect is earned, usually by doing a good job. Respect is never just given, it leads ti such imps as that Bush guy.

Note to wingnuts: That's what a liberal media looks like.

Can you even imagine such a thing happening here?

No.

Yes tyronen, it's weird how little awareness there is in the U.S. about Canada. I think U.S. citizens have a collective blindspot about this other first-world, English-speaking country we share a border with.

(of course, omitting people who live near the Canadian border, have Canadian relatives, or trade with Canada regularly).

This raises what I've always thought is an interesting question: Why do reporters go to press conferences where their questions won't be answered? Wouldn't they serve their readers just as well by watching on TV and writing about it that way? I think there are a lot of events that could be covered just as well by people like Kevin, who (I assume) sits in his house and writes about the news of the day, as by someone who shows up to the White House but never actually gets to have a substantive exchange with a high-ranking administration official.

Heil,

you must come from the same place craigie comes from, that space under a rock, full of shit.

I seem to recall Steven Colbert making some comments on just this point at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, or whatever it was called. I think he was largely in agreement with bleh on May 26, 2006 at 12:37 PM, above.

As representative of all Canadians everywhere I would like to say that we like going unnoticed. That is how we will achieve world dominence.

First, we take over the comedy industry.

Second and related to point one, we unleash David Frum. This will confuse and weaken you puny Americans.

Third, We trick Tucker Carlson into calling us retarded.

Fourth, we flood the airwaves with second-rate Divas. Celine Dion, Shania Twain and Avrile Lavingne. (This builds on a longstanding conspiracy to weaken the American heartland, going back through Jagged Little Pill and to Nova Scotia born and raised Ann Murry, aka Snowbird).

Five, Canadian operative originally from London Ontario wins Oscars for Million Dollar Baby and Crash. Crash, especially, aids Canadian hemegony enormously.

Sixth, David Frum swears eternal fidelity to Hillary Clinton in secret pagan ritual, granting him the power to perform super-human feats of logic and deductive reasoning. He then battles Neil Younge's singing voice in his underground lair.

Seven, The Toronto International Film Festival.

Eight, the Albertan oil sands.

Then, once these pillars are in place, and they almost are, with the aid of Mike Myers, Jim Carrey and proto-Canadian Tom Hanks, David Frum defeats evil in an epic battle involving stock car racing and half-human, half cheetah warrior salesmen, he installs Natalie Portman and/or Kate Blanchet(neither of whom are Canadian but who have both several times visited Toronto) in the Oval Office as the Snow Queen.

Fear not. Canadian rule will be benevolent.

Yes tyronen, it's weird how little awareness there is in the U.S. about Canada

Maybe I am just being cynical here, but you could substitute most of the rest of world for Canada and still be mostly accurate. Americans don't travel abroad much, and spend an inordinate amount of time locked in front of the American Idol/boob tube.

Why do reporters go to press conferences where their questions won't be answered?

So they can get invited to all the coolest Beltway parties, which is what Washington media coverage is really all about.

I watched a panel commentary on this topic last night where 3 members of the press were sharing their wisdom with the regular plebes in the audience. Two of the three members agreed that the Canadian Parliamentary Press Corps were seeing their mission as being the unofficial opposition having to challenge the gov't policies, and this at a time when the gov't is a minority so that the opposition members in Parliament actually outnumber the members of the governing party. The two reporters felt that there should be a lot more attention paid to the statements of these oppostion members and that the press has no need to usurp the role of offical opposition.

Then the discussion veered into procedural issues, such that the press corps actually pick and choose which members will ask questions and that the gov't is concerned that some members are regularly prevented from asking their questions while the issue is hot.

The problem is evident to any who watch Canadian media, especially the CBC, and the left-wing bias isn't apologized for nor is it tempered, and in fact it reminds me a lot of how Swedish media see their role:

There is a definite overrepresentation of leftists in the media world.” The same Guillo has also bragged about the fact that unlike Scandinavian neighbors Norway and Denmark, Sweden doesn’t have a significant political party critical of Muslim immigration. This is, according to him, because Swedish intellectuals have stuck together to prevent this from happening. “Swedish Radio correspondent Ceclia Udden who, when accused of systematic bias in covering the American election, blithely agreed with her critics and expressed bewilderment as to why anyone would be bothered by such trivialities. “On such issues as the US right and Israel…there was a Swedish…consensus, and any reporting had to be based on that,” she said.”

Canada is a small country, and like Sweden, their elites are much more tightly knit than is the case in the US. The bias in their reporting is a real eye-opener for those who are complaining about US Left Wing Bias in the press.

In Canada, according to the reporter panel, the press controls the information flow during Parliamentary Press Conferences and the message is shaped by the press, rather than simply reported. Keep in mind that this isn't editorials we're referring to here, but straight coverage, with the slant coming from the reporters and not from the oppostion parties.

God yes I wish our press had the balls to do something like that.

Sadly, our press has masters who understand how to best hold the leash, and those masters are not interested in having the press actually serve the citizenry.

Hell Y.E.S.!!!!

Posted by: wsam on May 26, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Brilliant, coffee spewing post.

"Can you even imagine such a thing happening here?"

Sure, just picture a Democratic president. They'd probably walk out if he refused to reveal his favorite sexual positions.

just curious. if the press corps as a whole is only reporting the good stuff about the administration, the party line, why is w's approval rating as low as the pittsburgh pirates' winning percentage? (and who is reporting that in the first place?). it wasn't a blogger who broke the story of the cia's overseas gulag, it was a reporter at the wash post. nor was it a blogger who broke the story of the george's little evesdropping program. that was the work of reporters at the new york times. and who reported the katrina fiasco? also the so-called msm. now, there's an incredible amount of stupidity out there, a huge herd mentality but to say the press corps is nothing but a bunch of ass-kissing, unquestioning stenographers is plain silly.

I remember when Harper was being sworn in & starting his period in power there was a CBC piece where a group of reporters talked about how long he would be able to hold on before another election would be called

The consensus was somewhere between 6 & 12 months

He seems to be a spitting image of Bush behavior wise but a bit more self important

BTW...Canada is NOT a "small country" since it the second largest country on the planet land area wise (I know people say small and mean in population numbers)

CBC was the news I followed on 9/11 because I couldn`t stand the hype on U.S. networks (Yea Peter Mansbridge !) & I`m hooked on the Monday night "Best of French Canada" series Fortier (about a female police psychologist)

No "Hockey Night in Canada" for me tho...

"We are accustomed to the new land yet attached to the old country" - anon

Tangoman> Canada ['s] elites are ... tightly knit... The bias in their reporting is a real eye-opener for those who are complaining about US Left Wing Bias in the press.

Uh-huh. Well, doesn't seem that way from here. Media ownership concentration is extreme, in the hands of just a few very wealthy and right-leaning (by our standards) owners. When you focus on the CBC, keep in mind that it has a minority of the viewers/listeners.

Given the corporate bias in the remainder of our media, especially the Canada-hating, front-page-editorial National Post (a paper that has never turned a profit, being entirely a propoganda project), the CBC sees its role as counterbalancing the private media's inherent bias to money interests.

In any event, from anyone outside the USA, the media consensus in your country appears profound, especially on any issue relating to the outside world, where it severely limits information flow and tows a patriot line. I could just as well write:

"America's elites are tightly knit. The bias in their reporting is a real eye-opener for those who are complaining about right wing bias in the press."

Re Harper, the man is a miniature Napoleon. You just have to watch his body language. Their government is not going to hold together well. If only the federal Liberals can find a willing leader above the 3rd-teir level, his stay may be short.

And re being ignored, might have to do with things humming along fairly well by world standards. Staying boring is a good thing. Look at the Netherlands, formerly a quietly content and happy with itself little country, with boring politics. Their political scene is a fit outline for an opera now.

Kenji wrote: "You know, this is one more reason Harper won't last long. They hired Bush's groomers to come shave off his Killer Fruit mustache"

Pretty funny. I'm a Canadian and can tell you that Harper is rising quickly in the polls and would without a doubt, gain a majority gov't if an election were called today.

And Harper has NEVER had a mustache. You're obviously a very well informed commentator on Canadian politics.

Canada's system is not like ours, though, right? (Forgive my ignorance, I was taught in American schools.) Don't they have a no-confidence-vote system, so they are not necessarily stuck with Harper and his crew for four more years?

I've always thought this is why the press has to act all nice with the adminsitration in power. The President dominates the news; whatever he says, no matter how dishonest, gets the most coverage for four years straight. Also, barring major scandal (or in the Clinton case, a minor scandal that gets major ratings), you're stuck begging the same people for access for four years.

I don't necessarily think the US press are lapdogs for Bush -- they're simply desperate for access, and since this administration has no respect for the press at all, they believe their access is perpetually in danger unless they play nice. Canada's system leaves their press with no such problem.

A couple of comments on this story:

Harper, a conservative, is whining and crying about how The Media is biased against him personally, the Conservative Party of Canada, and conservatives in general. What a joke. EVERY prime minister (like every politician I guess) sees the media as biased against him or her. Harper should do a little review of the relationship between the media and Trudeau as a start. Trudeau was an arrogant prick but he sure as hell was no where near a conservative and yet he fought with the press all the time. Told reporters to fuck off when he felt like it, refused to go to the press gallery annual dinner etc. But at least he didn't whine and snivel like a two year old who is not getting his way!

Harper and his team are way too close to the nutcase wing of the US Republican party. They are importing advisers from that party and trying out way too many of their cute little political tricks. Give me back some solid Tory conservatism instead of this whacko US imported crap.

Tango Man,

Good comment. Totally wrong, but good in a weird uninformed sort of way. What show were you watching? Poka Dot Door?

McGill University has done numerous studies looking at the issue of media bias in Canada. They found that throughout the nineties, the press ran far more negative stories on the Liberals than the other parties.

This is easily explained.

The Liberals were in power. Obviously, in Canada, reporters find it more fruitful to report on the party in power, rather than the one not in power. This is because the party in power is doing things.

How does it work in other countries?

Additionally, as in the US, most newspapers and TV stations in Canada are more conservative than the population.

Rather than examine their own decade-long failure to convince a plurality of Canadians that they deserve to form the government, Canadian conservatives have blamed the media. (It is the media's fault the Canadian right split into two parties?)

This is why Prime Minister Harper feels justified in complaining about media bias. He truly believes the media is biased. Regardless of the evidence.

What is really at issue here is the government not allowing the press to do its job. Which is report on government policy and actions.

Way to try and confuse the issue by bringing up Sweden though. That was great.

Don't be mistaken about Harper. He is popular and gaining more popularity by the day. Right now the Conservatives have a minority government, and within a year after the next election they may well have a majority if Harper can continue what he is doing. I personally think this is a ploy by him for the press to lay off of him down the road.

Yes, the Canadian press did the right thing in this case, but it really is amazing how much sympathy Harper is getting for putting up with the "media".

Re Harper, the man is a miniature Napoleon. You just have to watch his body language.

Don't you think that this more accurately describes Chretien?

the CBC sees its role as counterbalancing the private media's inherent bias to money interests.

The problem here is that the CBC is a taxpayer financed entity and it shouldn't be taking a polarized position on issues - it's a news organization, not an editorial service.

especially the Canada-hating, front-page-editorial National Post

Priceless :) Canada-hating = not Left-wing.

What show were you watching? Poka Dot Door?

The National.

"Give me back some solid Tory conservatism instead of this whacko US imported crap."

Sorry, we've got a bumper crop of conservative stupidity down here and we just have to find a place to put it all.

Additionally, as in the US, most newspapers and TV stations in Canada are more conservative than the population.

We have a comedian in our midst or someone who lives in Berkeley or Quebec.

Tim the Canuck wrote: "When you focus on the CBC, keep in mind that it has a minority of the viewers/listeners. Given the corporate bias in the remainder of our media, especially the Canada-hating, front-page-editorial National Post (a paper that has never turned a profit, being entirely a propoganda project), the CBC sees its role as counterbalancing the private media's inherent bias to money interests."

Bruce is likely an NDP'er, which for our American friends is a national party considerably to the left of the Democrats.

While he complains about the bias of a private, shareholder owned press, he gushes over the 'impartiality' of a taxpayer funded, state-controlled CBC! He equates the fact that the National Post (a relatively new paper) is not yet profitable with it lacking credibility. Yet he has no problem with the CBC which receives more than a billion (yes, thats with a 'B')taxpayer dollars a year, continually losing viewers.

The National Post is owned by the Asper family, who have for decades been Liberal Party supporters rather than supporters of the Conservatives.

My prediction: an election by next summer. Irrespective of who leads the Liberal party, their record of corruption and incompetence will ensure that they lose. The Conservatives have thus far shown that they say what they mean and then follow through on their promises. People appreciate that, even when they may disagree with a particular policy.

Bruce the Canuck wrote: "When you focus on the CBC, keep in mind that it has a minority of the viewers/listeners. Given the corporate bias in the remainder of our media, especially the Canada-hating, front-page-editorial National Post (a paper that has never turned a profit, being entirely a propoganda project), the CBC sees its role as counterbalancing the private media's inherent bias to money interests."

Bruce is likely an NDP'er, which for our American friends is a national party considerably to the left of the Democrats.

While he complains about the bias of a private, shareholder owned press, he gushes over the 'impartiality' of a taxpayer funded, state-controlled CBC! He equates the fact that the National Post (a relatively new paper) is not yet profitable with it lacking credibility. Yet he has no problem with the CBC which receives more than a billion (yes, thats with a 'B')taxpayer dollars a year, continually losing viewers.

The National Post is owned by the Asper family, who have for decades been Liberal Party supporters rather than supporters of the Conservatives.

My prediction: an election by next summer. Irrespective of who leads the Liberal party, their record of corruption and incompetence will ensure that they lose. The Conservatives have thus far shown that they say what they mean and then follow through on their promises. People appreciate that, even when they may disagree with a particular policy.

Bruce is likely an NDP'er, which for our American friends is a national party considerably to the left of the Democrats. . . . .

My prediction: an election by next summer. Irrespective of who leads the Liberal party, their record of corruption and incompetence will ensure that they lose. The Conservatives have thus far shown that they say what they mean and then follow through on their promises. People appreciate that, even when they may disagree with a particular policy.

I concur on both predictions.

>>Re Harper, the man is a miniature Napoleon. You just have to watch his body language.
>Don't you think that this more accurately describes Chretien?

No, Chretien was closer to Tony Soprano.

>>the CBC sees its role as counterbalancing the private media's inherent bias to money interests.
>The problem here is that the CBC is a taxpayer financed entity and it shouldn't be taking a polarized position on issues...

Every news organization takes some variant of a polarized position. The CBC is the only one not completely at the mercy of commerial interests. It therefore makes perfect sense that it should provide a counter balance to whatever slant those interests create in the private media.

>>especially the Canada-hating, front-page-editorial National Post
>Priceless :) Canada-hating = not Left-wing.

Imagine a national US newspaper run by Michael Moore, where every day there was an America Sucks story on the front page explaining how much better things are in Mexico, and that also promoted giving up the american dollar as a national currency in favour of the Euro. How long would that last down there, before the building was burned down?

This raises what I've always thought is an interesting question: Why do reporters go to press conferences where their questions won't be answered? Wouldn't they serve their readers just as well by watching on TV and writing about it that way?

Yes, but only if King Kong isn't being shown....

>While he complains about the bias of a private, shareholder owned press, he gushes over the 'impartiality' of a taxpayer funded, state-controlled CBC!

No, never said there were impartial. They're not.

>My prediction: an election by next summer. Irrespective of who leads the Liberal party, their record of corruption and incompetence will ensure that they lose.

Corruption, yes, incompetence, no. They governed fairly well overall. The Tories may have had the potential to succeed as you outline, but only if they moderate themselves severely on many issues. Harper is the major force that moderates them, and only by dint of a strategic mind, not his values.

Given that he isn't showing a lot of governing ability within our system, the changes of a majority government aren't that high. Also keep in mind the powderkeg that is Alberta's interests vs the nation's, and that the Tories's heart is in Calgary.

Greenhouse gas emmissions lead to the Tar Sands project being a source of much shame for most Canadians. The economic effects of a very high dollar, labour imbalances, over-concentrated resource royalties and undeserved tax breaks make the tar sands a net loss for the country as a whole for many years to come. That issue alone, which Harper is headed straight for a crash on, could tip the balance in an election.

Oh ya, one more thing:

>The National Post is owned by the Asper family...

That's pretty recent. What's more relevant is that the National Post was the pet project of Conrad Black, a man who promoted amalgamation with the USA, and renounced his Canadian citizenship so he could take a peerage in the British house of lords as a proper upper class asshole. Of course, now he's better known as a white collar criminal last seen on CCTV stills removing evidence of his theft from shareholders.

And, getting back the subject at the top, I'd note that the rebellious reporters in question were almost all from the corporate media!

Honor Canadian journalists and belittle US journalists.

I see a couple of Conservative-supporting Canadians are confidently making predictions of a Tory majority on an election that the concede is probably at least 6 - 12 months away.

This is rather rich - coming from these folks.

When Harper was down in the polls in 2004 or losing support in 2006 which cost him his majority, the popular cry on conservative blogs was "The only poll that counts is on election day!". And yet we now see the very same people predicting a majority on the polls of the day (and I disagree that he has been gaining popularity by leaps and bounds - it all depends on what polling company - of which there are like 6-8 in Canada - you look at).

IF you guys wanna crow about current polls, go for it. But a year is an eternity in politics.. and I believe the arrogance that Harper is showing right now are actually the seeds of his downfall.

wsam, wasn't The Guess Who a Canadian band? Didn't they have a thing for American women?

I see a couple of Conservative-supporting Canadians are confidently making predictions of a Tory majority on an election that the concede is probably at least 6 - 12 months away.

This is rather rich - coming from these folks.

When Harper was down in the polls in 2004 or losing support in 2006 which cost him his majority, the popular cry on conservative blogs was "The only poll that counts is on election day!". And yet we now see the very same people predicting a majority on the polls of the day (and I disagree that he has been gaining popularity by leaps and bounds - it all depends on what polling company - of which there are like 6-8 in Canada - you look at).

Maybe they're planning to use Diebold for the next exelction up there.

"Can you even imagine such a thing happening here?"

Well, yes. The US hasn't seen that particular form of disrepsect, but our press has shown plenty of disrespect for W. E.g., I remember a televised press conference several years ago when reporter after reporter asked essentially the same supposede question:" each reporter went on a diatribe comlaining Bush was doing things wrong. These reporters made it clear that they considered themselves superior to our elected President.

More recently we have the spectacle of Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times, blowing off the President's personal request not to divulge the warrantless al Qaeda/domestic wiretapping program, warning that divulging the program would hurt national security.

Look at yesterday's news conference with Tony Blair. There were questions about Bush's biggest mistake, why he wasn't negotiating with Iran, why his policy wasn't succeeding in Iraq, etc. No questions about his biggest success, what was going right in Iraq, why the economy was doing so well, etc. Blair's positive news that Iraq political leaders uniformly supported continued Coalition presence was ignored by the media.

"American woman
stay away from me"

For you genial Americans who want to know more about the Canadian context and have a nice summer read, try John Kenneth Galbraith's The Scotch. It will inform and entertain you, I promise.

I would love it if every reporter continued to ask the same question when they get a non-answer. I would love to see the White House actually forced to answer questions. I give reporters the benefit of the doubt, but the same old way of doing things is not working. They need to stop trying to "stay the course" and get tough.

No, I don't want the press to stage events to embarass the President. That is petty.

For starters: I want a press that reports the news from Iraq, the bad AND the good.

This is one advantage to a parliamentary system where the head of state and the boss of the government are two different people. The American system has its charms, but parliamentary systems bring the leader down a peg or two, and force him to debate his peers, his fellow citizens. Debating or showing vigorous (even somewhat disrespectful) disagreement with the president just doesn't really happen, anymore than it happens with Queen Elizabeth.

The Guess Who angle is an interesting one.

I've always considered the Guess Who's Burton Cummings as the Emperor to Celine Dion's Darth Vader.

David Frum is the Samuel L Jackson of partisan hackery.

This of course leaves us with Randy Bachman.

He is the Canadian equivilant of a Sith Lord. Though, even with the improved exchange rate, in the US he's only be a level three Elf in Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps with the ability to fly.

Both Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings are from Winnipeg, as are the Aspers, who own the National Post. It's not a coincidence, it's syncronicity.

It gets worse (or better if you long for the day when everyone will wear wollen socks).

Canada controls Elvis. Yes, he's still alive (he lives in suburban Ottawa plotting strategy) and has been working for Canada since at least 1953.

Elvis was such a big player in Movement Canadianism, Prime Minister Diefnebaker granted Elvis a special dispensation to have TCB (Taking Care of Business) inscribed on his tombstone. Taking Care of Business is Canada's secret motto. For Canadians, taking care of business, means taking over the world, starting with the entertainment business and mass consumption of doughnuts.

Of course, what is above Elvis's 'grave' is not really a tombstone. It is actually a mystical stone, sacred to Canadians. If you rub your belly on it while humming the harmonies to Snowbird you achieve the ability to withstand extreme doses of public television.

Ernest Hemmingway's a moveable feast is also a pro-Canada piece of Propoganda. As is the US constitution and grapefruit.

You guys are missing some important points.

The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer was raised on the mean streets of Montreal. So was Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen writes songs and once lived in Greece. Many people in Montreal speak French, often with some fluency. The ex-Liberal Prime Minster, Paul Martin, was also from Montreal.

In fact, almost as many Canadian political leaders are Montrealers as are Scottish. Our first PM in 1867 was Scottish. Tony Blair is Scottish. So is his successor, Gordon Brown.

"Canadians remind me of Russians who are pretending to be American,"

Jimminiy Glick, played by Martin Short (Canadian).

You guys in America are screwed.

I dunno- maybe "the press is against me" will play in Canada, but I'm skeptical.

Down just south of the border here in Minnesota, our love affair with that pro wrestler that used to be our governor started to sour about the time he started calling the press "jackals" and demanding they wear IDs identifying themselves as such. (They didn't, by the way.)

Petulance like that wears thin fast. Harper better toughen up quick or his political life will be short regardless of the current poll results.

There's only one problem with wsam's list, Canadian humor... isn't.

Someone asked: "Canada's system is not like ours, though, right? (Forgive my ignorance, I was taught in American schools.) Don't they have a no-confidence-vote system, so they are not necessarily stuck with Harper and his crew for four more years?"

This is correct - canadian federal and provincial governments may be defeated on matters of confidence at any time (although it actually be tricky to schedule confidence votes as the government has a lot of control over the parliamentary agenda). This is not much of an issue for many governments, however, as if they have a comfortable majority, they'll never be defeated in such votes. Therefore, many candian governments are in parctice in power for long terms. Harper has a minority government, so another election is to be expected sooner rather than later, likely triggered by the government itself when it feels confident of obtaining a majority.

This is correct - canadian federal and provincial governments may be defeated on matters of confidence at any time

The tradition is evolving though - recall the PM Martin didn't recognize the fact that he lost a vote of confidence and decided to continue on governing for another number of months.

How dare you insinuate Canadian humour might be sub-par. Have you seen Celine Dion's baby book? The one which has babies in cabbages?

We are the funniest race ever!!!

If this was the 18th Century and I was a French nobleman and you a minor Italian aristocrat I would callenge you to a duel.

"No questions about his biggest success, what was going right in Iraq, why the economy was doing so well, etc. Blair's positive news that Iraq political leaders uniformly supported continued Coalition presence was ignored by the media."

Wonderful David - can you imagine a press that doesn't ask questions about someone's fantasy land? Check our Iraqi gov't's endorsement of Iranian nukes today or their free trade agreement with Iran.

Let me put this another way - do you really believe that there is this international conspiracy to suppress "good" news about Iraq? You know one that includes all the American press and that of other countries? Or do you believe that if even the Voice of America can't post a reporter into a country safely, that maybe, just maybe it's a complete disaster? And that maybe there isn't a lot of "good" news during a civil war?

Back to Canada - the PM is playing a standard conservative card, whining about the media. And it almost always works. And although the polls are looking decent for Harper right now - who knows what'll happen when the Liberals finally pull themselves together?

Tango,

Except it wasn't a vote of non-confidence. That's a technical term, which the opposition incorrectly applied.

have you ever got anything correct?

TangoMan's correct, although I don't know that "evolving" is quite the right term to use. Maybe occasional abuse...

Another point is that its completely erroneous to characterize the canadian media as being somehow in the liberal camp or as attempting to undermine the conservative government. Frankly, the editorial policy of many of the media appeared to be encourage a change of government from the liberals to the conservatives during the last election. And, as in the US, the media are so terrified of being labelled liberal that bend over backwards to be "balanced" (which typically gives conservative voices more than ample coverage)

Samuel Knight wrote, "Let me put this another way - do you really believe that there is this international conspiracy to suppress "good" news about Iraq? You know one that includes all the American press and that of other countries? Or do you believe that if even the Voice of America can't post a reporter into a country safely, that maybe, just maybe it's a complete disaster? And that maybe there isn't a lot of "good" news during a civil war?"

Well, I agree with you, Samuel, that the security situation in Iraq is a complete disaster.

However, there is also good news, such as
-- a thriving free press,
-- 5% growth in the GNP last year,
-- re-start of an Iraqi stock market
-- stability of the Iraq currency,
-- startup of many of small businesses,
-- improvement in the Iraqi Army,
-- the fact (mentioned by Prime Minister Blair) that even the police force is greatly corrupt, it also includes many fine officers,
-- Blair also said that he spoke to Iraqi leaders of all factions, and they all support having the Coalition remain in Iraq for the time being.
-- Today an Iraqi blogger reports a proposal to loosen some of the overly strict anti-Bathification rules, thereby correcting an error that Blair admitted yesterday. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

That fact that you appear to know only the bad news may be evidence that media under-report good news. I recommend the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf This gives an unbiased updating of various statistics, both positive and negative.

My prediction: an election by next summer. Irrespective of who leads the Liberal party, their record of corruption and incompetence will ensure that they lose. The Conservatives have thus far shown that they say what they mean and then follow through on their promises. People appreciate that, even when they may disagree with a particular policy.

The record of corruption lies with old-school Chretien Liberals who at this point have almost entirely been purged from the party. The accusation of incompetence is impressive, considering you're accusing a party who governed for over a decade and presided over the largest sustained economic boom in Canadian history and shrank the national debt by a quarter of being incompetent.

The softwood lumber deal that the Tories struck is rapidly being revealed as little more than a total capitulation to the Americans, with conservatives having little more to argue than "well we got a deal!" Unfortunately, being screwed is not really a winning proposition, and as new elements of the deal come to light (notably the ceding of provincial legal authority to the Americans on certain regulatory issues) and as more and more softwood executives are now saying they were railroaded into an agreement, it seems unlikely that the Tories' newfound reputation for governing excellence will translate over - especially when they've just signed on to an extended stay in Afghanistan that the majority of the country opposes. (Ironically, I don't, it's practically the only thing I agree with the Tories on.)

Furthermore, for the Tories to get a majority victory, they need to increase their popularity in Ontario, where Harper is actively ruining his reputation by involving himself in provincial politics. If they don't pick up seats in Ontario their odds of getting a majority are really, frankly, quite bad.

TangoMan's correct, although I don't know that "evolving" is quite the right term to use. Maybe occasional abuse...

There has to be a first step in order for a custom to begin the process of changing. Whether not respecting a non-confidence vote was a one-off form of abuse or just the first step in changing parliamentary tradition is hard to tell. Consider a similar situation - Stronach, K. Martin, and Reid cross the floor to join the Liberals and you don't hear too much complaint, yet Emerson crosses the floor and all of a sudden there is talk of explicitly forbidding the act. The test for evolving customs is whether they're permitted to change or those who are trying to change them are held to account. In this latter case the what was good for the goose wasn't good for the gander so positive action may result which changes the custom. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Harper tries to pull a Martin and ignore a successful vote of no-confidence and excuses it on a technicality. Will he prevail, as did Harper, or will the custom be codified?

The accusation of incompetence is impressive, considering you're accusing a party who governed for over a decade and presided over the largest sustained economic boom in Canadian history and shrank the national debt by a quarter of being incompetent.

Yeah, it sure must have helped to have the GST and FTA in place - what ever happened to those Red Book promises? The only hard decision the Liberals made was to address the deficit and they were willing to greviouly injure a remarkable Health Care system to do it. Indeed, that was a tough call but when you look at the idiocy of their other policy decisions, it's not hard to justify the moniker of incompetence. Do you really want to justify canceling the EH-101 helicopter deal, paying half a billion in penalties, and then having to continuously rig the bidding requirements so that the same company doesn't keep winning the public tender and do you want to argue that such a governing philosophy is the hallmark of competence?

The only way much-needed reform is going to happen in Canada (and maybe even America) may be a centrist third party like Kadima, willing to eschew the corruption, institutional decay, and beholdenness to bureaucrat unions and corporations of the Liberal Party, and the beholdenness of the Conservative Party to corporations and Canada's fruitcake right-wing minority.

A party and prime minister accountable only to the broad center of that country's electorate is that country's best hope; it may be America's as well. I see little reason to be optimistic about Democrats or Republicans today.

I want to say that this looks like the Jesse Ventura-ization of Steven Harper, but I'm not sure it is. About the only thing North American executives (governors, presidents, prime ministers) could accomplish in the 1990s was fiscal solvency. It was a time of peace and prosperity (not unlike the 1920s; what could Coolidge do?), and little serious was on the table.

But these are different times, and we are entering one of those periodic eras of major reform. In some sense it may be epochal, the beginning of a new international order that lasts for several centuries. In both Canada and America, there needs to be major movement toward energy independence, political, economic, and entitlement reform, and major work on a slew of other very serious issues, but the traditional parties in both countries have become dinosaurs, clueless, corrupt, and inept in the face of said very serious issues.

Harper's tantrum suggests to me that he is un-serious about governing as a centrist reformer, and would prefer to live in a Bush-esque bubble answering only to his wingnut base.

Tango man is wrong. A vote of non-confidence is a technical procedure, you don't just get to have one by calling a vote a vote of non-confidence.

That explains why the government didn't fall, as one would have expected it would have if the vote really had been one of non-confidence.

The only thing incompetent here is Tango Man.

Since when did to purchase helicopters or not become evidence of a governing philosophy? This is why Conservatives get made fun of.

If Kevin Drum really wants to pay attention to Canadian politics, he should start reading www.captainsquartersblog.com

And Harper must be doing something right, despite the behavior of the Canadian press, since the Conservative Party has been gaining popularity during the time they have the government of Canada. More and more it looks like the days of the Liberal Party and its shameless corruption are over.

Also, Stephen Harper looks like the f'ing Manchurian candidate.

Captain's quarters is the worst blog in the known universe. He doesn't know the first thing about Canada. Furthermore, he's medically retarded.

I liked how Captain Ed-rock claimed the Gun Registry was a ploy designed to keep the RCMP too busy to investigate the Liberals. Good theory. Except the RCMP had nothing to do with the gun registry. Nothing at all.

Keep that right wing loon-dog crap out of the Great White North! Fools.

Mt T is Canadian!

wsam, wasn't The Guess Who a Canadian band? Didn't they have a thing for American women?

As my Canadian girlfriend has recently pointed out to me, the song includes the lines "American woman, I said get away/...I don't need your war machines/ I don't need your ghetto scenes...." Not actually the most pro-American song....

Also (also) it occurs to me that it would be far more logical for Canada's much-needed centrist reformer to come from the left rather than the right.

The Liberal Party is the more natural party of government in Canada, and the country is not under constant threat of terorism like Israel.

I suspect it would be easier for a maverick Liberal MP to pull an Ohlmert and bring in center-right partners from the Conservatives, than for a Conservative to do the same, or govern as an effective centrist within the current party framework.

Canada's government institutions and the news media remain dominated by the left, and its silent majority is centrist today, not full of Albertan right-radicals. Bush could do what he has done for the past five and a half years because #1) the Republicans are the more natural party of government in America #2) the wingnut GOP base is much larger as a percentage of the electorate in America than the Conservatives one in Canada #3) there is a strong right-wing press in the States.

Harper could pull a Schwarzenegger, and capitulate, leaving Canada in a kind of void for the next several years (when needed reform should be enacted), and I'm not at all sure he understands (like Arnold) what actually must be done (let alone that he has the political capital to do it). By this logic, California needs a maverick Democrat too, and that's probably true. I doubt Steve Westly is that guy. Apparently things need to get really bad all over the place before we can get real change.

On the other hand, I also see Hillary Clinton as the current front-runner for the White House in 2008 (not just for the Democratic ticket), which clearly contradicts this neat logic.

wsam,

Here's what was going on, from MapleLeafWeb:

The government employed key Parliamentary measures such as cancelling Opposition Days (days allocated to each Opposition Party where that party sets the parliamentary agenda); making it more difficult for the Opposition to introduce a motion of non-confidence; and using a little known parliamentary rule to cut off debate on a budget amendment, thereby bringing the budget to a vote on a day when several Conservative MPs were absent. The Liberals simply ignored a House of Commons motion passed on May 10th, a motion which essentially called upon the government to resign; the Liberals argued that such a motion would not become an issue of non-confidence unless certain procedures were followed.

Hey, if you want to hold to the exact procedural process then nobody had any grounds to complain about Emerson crossing over to the Conservatives for he followed all of the rules in doing so. Look, when a motion calls on the gov't to resign, then it's a non-confidence vote, even though it is not labelled as such, it still is, in substance, the same thing. A motion to resign and a motion of non-confidence are equivalents and all Martin was doing was arguing semantics.

When I moved to Canada from the US 16 years ago, I can remember telling my relatives that politics here is like a blood sport. I was completely blown away by how much attention is paid by many, many people to politics at all levels. And by how knowledgeable so many people I met were about not only this country's affairs but of the rest of the world.

This is a fantastic country for many reasons, not the least of which is that so many people are insistent on holding the government accountable. Who knows, maybe a parliamentary democracy really is a better form.

Pay attention to Burton Cummings at the fadeout of "American Woman":

Goodbye American woman
Goodbye American shit

That's OK by me, though, for Cummings earned his place in the socialist wing of the songwriter's Hall of Fame with this jewel:

Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be giving away
When we all live together

And "Share The Land" actually made the Top Ten in 1970 - I can't imagine that happening in the far less idealistic times we live in today.

Samuel Knight >"...when the Liberals finally pull themselves together?"

Don`t the Liberals have like 9 or 10 folks runnning for the top slot ?

Sounds like real democracy to me

Linus >"...fruitcake right-wing..."

Isn`t that redundant ?

Linus >"...Apparently things need to get really bad all over the place before we can get real change..."

Well, that is how primates behave after all

Who cares to bet against the supposition that this time next year Canada has a different governement ?

Moving on...what are some good (reasonable) Canadian political blogs to read regularly ?

I know you Canucks can tear yourselves away from the hockey matches long enough to let we Yanks down south know

What Ed says below is, I believe, also true for Canadians BTW

"...I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate..." - Edward R. Murrow

For those of you debating the virtues of parliamentary politics and the potential for Mr. Harper's calling an election in 6-12 months time, you might want to have a look at the bill Harper is putting forward to set fixed election dates: the next to be in fall 2009. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060526.wharperelec0526/BNStory/National/home

I don't see this as a winner for him. The reasons are many. First, it makes Canada look more like the US, and as an American living in Canada, I think it is abundantly clear that no one outside of Alberta wants Canada to look like the US. Second, it looks an awful lot like an abuse of power -- a minority government trying to keep itself in power for longer. Third, it looks like the polls are going to his head -- just like they did in the election Martin won. True, the Liberals don't have a leader yet, but Bill Graham is doing a pretty good job interim leading the party in opposition and my bet is he and Layton and Duceppe will jump all over this.

"True, the Liberals don't have a leader yet, but Bill Graham is doing a pretty good job interim leading the party in opposition..."

Plus, he put on all those great concerts.

和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声

There was nothing wrong procedurally with Emerson crossing the floor.

Linus >"...Apparently things need to get really bad all over the place before we can get real change..."

Well, that is how primates behave after all.

Some are Sleestack.

Pay attention to Burton Cummings at the fadeout of "American Woman":

Goodbye American woman
Goodbye American shit

He says "chick," not "shit."

Yeah, it's kind of sad. Media jobs paying over 250,000 dollars have a castration requirement the for men who accept them. I guess in an age of viagra, the feel they don't need their balls.

Not sure what they do to women like Elizabeth Bumiller to turn them into such suck-ups, but I think it's a procedure closely related to a lobotomy.

"Media jobs paying over 250,000 dollars have a castration requirement the for men who accept them. I guess in an age of viagra, the feel they don't need their balls."

I still have a moustache.

"Not sure what they do to women like Elizabeth Bumiller to turn them into such suck-ups, but I think it's a procedure closely related to a lobotomy."

I still have my balls.

Anne, that's because you're self-employed. In any case, some of the requirements are waived for right-wingers.

I'm betting Harper hasn't YET had the time or influence to buy his country's media...give him a chance to get it set up his way...he has a great model right below him.

Apart from the CBC, most Canadian news venues outside Quebec veer to the right of most Canadians. E.g., the only big left-wing newspaper seems to be the Toronto Star. Ray Conlogue offers a good explanation of this in the May '06 issue of the Literary Review of Canada.

Someone asked about Canadian political blogs. There's a good site at:

http://www.canadian-politics.com/

That link is to their main page, where you get info on the Canadian political system and links to the main news stories of the day. There's a link to their blog in the left menu bar.

I'm Canadian, and I think commenters at the Washington Monthly idealize Canadians. We're generally ignorant, too, since our knowledge is mostly confined to North America. Also, we're developing a split that's similar to the 'red state vs. blue state' split in the US. Here it's increasingly being characterized as an urban-rural divide, which isn't quite accurate since a lot of suburban areas and some smaller cities fall politically on the 'rural' side.

So I see some of the Canadian Trolletariat (also known as members of the cult of personality of Harper) came down to further demonstrate their ignorance of Canadian politics and rules of governance. Take Tangoman's assertion that the Libs ignored a vote of non-confidence, what he doesn't mention is that this was not a vote of non-confidence as recognized by Parliamentary precedent and definition. That is when a vote in the House of Commons defeats the government on a confidence motion and/or a money bill which is automatically a vote of confidence for a government. What the opposition did last year was attach a statement of no confidence as an amendment to a committee recommended piece of legislation. That is not the same thing at all as a vote of non-confidence. I will give him credit on the part about Martin's Liberals playing games with procedures so as to try and delay a real non-confidence vote until he could get enough MPs to support his minority, but that was all he was correct about in that post.

As for Harper's petulance with the Parliamentary Press Gallery, this is the latest in a series of moves by Harper to limit traditional media access to a government, the Ministers of that government, and to the PM himself. Take the truly unprecedented decision by Harper to keep the time and place that Cabinet meets as a secret as one example. He also removed the decades old tradition of the media being outside both doors of Cabinet meetings so that when Ministers came out they were seen either answering questions or running away from them. Then we get into his decision to take the role of deciding who asks questions away from the PPG where it has traditionally been. No, there have been several concerted and coordinated attempts to turn the media into either a bunch of Harper lap dogs or somehow to cast them as the ones acting inappropriately.

I think Harper went way too far though this week when he claimed that the entire PPG was not only an opposition unlike any other PM has ever had to face but when he whined about how no Liberal PM has ever faced such questioning from the PPG, something clearly and patently false to anyone that actually has watched Canadian federal politics for most of the last few decades. Keep in mind that this PM got into government on a combination of disgust with the current Liberal government's corruption and a stealth campaign where all those with more shall we say controversial views were kept away from media and candidate debates in their own ridings. Once in government Harper put out a gag order that no minister of his government could talk to the media or even to a local paper on local issues without first having it vetted by his office. He has tried to prevent his government from talking about anything other than his five priorities (aka specific pledges somehow supposedly proving how good Harper/CPC government is despite their clearly being limited/targeted matters) and gets annoyed when the media chooses to ask questions outside of his preferences. AS Harper and the CPC tell Canadians that they will tell us what we need to know and when we need to know it, that the government will be the sole arbiter/determiner of what the public needs to know. This is not appropriate for any open society that has a free press and underscores Harper's authoritarian nature. This man does not care about consensuses, he cares about power.

One other thing about Harper that many Americans would not know, he is also like the neocons a product of Leo Strauss's political theories. You know the ones about the noble lie being acceptable, that only a special elite deserves to run the country and all those other goodies Americans have seen from this school of thought. In Harper's case he was exposed to it in Calgary, indeed the body of people involved there are known as the Calgary School. Which helps explain why we see so many similarities to the America mode of operating.

One other thing worth noting here is that Harper has no effective opposition in the House with the Libs being leaderless and with no clear successor as of yet. Yet despite that, despite all his supposedly great leadership his party's popularity has gone up only slightly. Which is remarkable because one trait of Canadians with a new government, especially a new one after so long with another party/government is to give them benefit of the doubt and a fair chance to prove themselves. If Harper and the CPC were as popular as its defenders here and elsewhere claim then they should be riding much higher than they are. My opinion is that this support is far softer than the people recognize and these fights with the media are like straws on the proverbial camel's back. Until the breaking straw is placed on the back the camel looks like it is holding up well, just as Harper and the CPC appears to be holding up well with all these fights with the PPG. Thing is though one of these straws will break the back eventually and one never knows in advance which straw that will be, and when it does all of this will fall back onto Harper's and the CPC's head. Remember CPCers Martin and the Liberals were looking at a majority in 2004 when the election was called and were looking at another minority when the last election was called, so low forties at this time does not a majority or even a strongly supported government make, especially in the Canadian context.

WSAM:

BTW, you forgot in your list of Canadian takeovers to mention the Tony Awards and Broadway this year…:)

journalists...ha!

Take the truly unprecedented decision by Harper to keep the time and place that Cabinet meets as a secret as one example. He also removed the decades old tradition of the media being outside both doors of Cabinet meetings so that when Ministers came out they were seen either answering questions or running away from them.

Gee whiz, even a guy like me who has to keep on top of Canadian news recognizes that none of the unprecedented decisions of the Harper gov't come anywhere near the departure from tradition or strain on good governance that preceeded Harper's gov't. For a guy like you, who actually lives in Canada, how could you so quickly forget the unprecedented concentration of power into the Prime Minister's Office during the Liberal reign as just one example.

a stealth campaign where all those with more shall we say controversial views were kept away from media and candidate debates in their own ridings.

Need I list all of the candidates from the other parties who were kept on a tight leash? Google up the Liberal candidates who were opposed to same sex marriage and then see how vocal they were about their positions during the campaign.

He has tried to prevent his government from talking about anything other than his five priorities (aka specific pledges somehow supposedly proving how good Harper/CPC government is despite their clearly being limited/targeted matters)

He's obviously committed to following through on a limited set of campaign promises, unlike the Liberals with their almost total abandonment of the pledges made in their infamous RedBook. Let's see:

Conservatives - trying to follow through on election promises;

Liberals - election promises made simply to keep power and then quickly abandoned once elected. Promises viewed as a means of achieving power for it wouldn't be effective to use a campaign slogan of "Elect us because we deserve to govern."

AS Harper and the CPC tell Canadians that they will tell us what we need to know and when we need to know it, that the government will be the sole arbiter/determiner of what the public needs to know. This is not appropriate for any open society that has a free press and underscores Harper's authoritarian nature.

Oh please, you've been drinking too much tainted kool-aid. Take a look at what happened to the public's right to know, via Freedom of Information laws, when the Liberals were elected:

In 1993-94, the federal government responded to 62 percent of requests within thirty days. This proportion had dropped to 48 percent by 1996-97. At the same time, the proportion of requests which took longer than 60 days to process increased from 21 percent to 33 percent. (The number of requests received by the federal government increased from 10,422 in 1993-94 to 12, 476 in 1996-97.) These delays have had a dramatic impact on the workload of the Information Commissioner himself, who has jurisdiction to hear complaints about abuse of statutory time limits by federal institutions. The number of complaints about delay or misuse of time extension provisions increased by 320 percent between 1991-92 and 1996-97. Such complaints now account for half of the Commissioner’s workload.

One other thing about Harper that many Americans would not know, he is also like the neocons a product of Leo Strauss's political theories. You know the ones about the noble lie being acceptable, that only a special elite deserves to run the country and all those other goodies Americans have seen from this school of thought.

Terrific - argument by innuendo. Go read some more National Enquirer.

Yet despite that, despite all his supposedly great leadership his party's popularity has gone up only slightly. Which is remarkable because one trait of Canadians with a new government, especially a new one after so long with another party/government is to give them benefit of the doubt and a fair chance to prove themselves.

Do you think that the demonization that party suffered from the smears of folks like you might have left the public with a bit of a hangover. Recall in the election before last how the public was already sick of Liberal corruption and the Conservatives were surging in the polls, until the "Hidden Agenda" scaremongering was unleashed with the result that a party that stood for corruption was elected once again. To expect fair assessments to be made in such an environment is unrealistic which is likely why the Harper gov't is sticking to a tight agenda, following through on a limited platform, and stressing good governance. They need to break through the vested intersts in Ontario, the culture wall in Quebec, and the welfare mentality in the Maritimes. Liberals pandered to those constituencies and the Conseratives seem to be trying different tactics to reach them and these tactics will take time to overturn the dependent relationships these regions had on the Liberal power structure.

"Canada Day" is new. Guess the "politics as bloodsport" quip would be validated by Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, who has rated parliamentary politics as "too confrontational". Perhaps the training ground would tend to explain the belligerence of a certain Scot testifying at the Senate some months past.
Off topic : Have you tried "About Eh List.ca" yet ?

There are no vested interests in the west?

Again, Tango, have you ever once made a comment that in any way reflected reality?

hackity hack hack!!