Fall Election

[franko]

Sept 9, 2008 8:04:11 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Let's see ... I am paying $60 a day in daycare fees ... Harper gives me $200 a month. So he pays for 3 days a month. Gee thanks .... who is paying for the other 17 days I wonder?

Here's where the right-wing in me comes out . . .

In answer to your question . . . um . . . you? Do you really want me to pay for your children to be in day care so your wife can work?

I don't mean that to come across as snarky . . . I know it may come across as a bit harsh [and you know that I'm the non-harsh good-guy on the board ] . . . it's an honest question.

Increasing daycare spaces isnt going to lower the cost either[/qutoe]
Agree here; in fact it may raise the cost, because the government will need more money to pay for buildings and equipment . . . then the daycare workers will unionize and costs will rise again.

with billions of surplus

Which just means that we are over-taxed! How about if we cut out unnecessary programs and bureaucrats which will lower costs and lower taxes.

Wouldn't it be something if your [and by your I mean "everybody's"] taxes were lowered by $4,000 [in general] and your wife [and by your wife I mean "one person in every household"] could stay home? Of course, it would mean that you [and by you I mean . . . ] would need to cut back a little bit . . . . not buy that amazing plasmarific TV and may have to watch RDS [come on now, there are only so many sacrifices that can be expected from a person, no?] in regular digital instead of HD . . .

Maybe it's because I'm of a generation where the government didn't provide everything for me. I paid my student loans back in full [and didn't declare bankruptcy or whine that I had to repay] . . . I took cheap vacations tenting and went to the beach with my family instead of borrowing to go to Disneyland . . . I adjusted my schedule so that I could look after my kids when my wife worked and vice versa [so I know the pain of getting kids off to daycare on time and answering "you let them wear that?" at the end of the day].

All that to say: universal health care? yes. money for the military? yes. universal day care? tax breaks yes, $5.00 $7.00 a day, no. [and this from someone very involved in the day care system].

[/end rant]

we could have had the best daycare services on the planet.

Back to being friendly/nice/whatever: I don't think so. We'd just wind up having the most bloated day care services on the planet -- it's the Canadian way, doncha know?

[Skilly]

I'll be voting for the man this time, not the party, but the party will be NDP (Jack Harris ... who will win by a landslide).

But if the NLFirst Party put a candidate in my riding, then I may vote for them too.

[franko]

Sept 9, 2008 8:46:14 GMT -5 @mattdhf said:

Sept 8, 2008 13:02:10 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Who is there really to vote for?

Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

I thought that both Groucho and John were dead!

[Skilly]

Sept 9, 2008 8:59:05 GMT -5 franko said:

Do you really want me to pay for your children to be in day care so your wife can work?

No I dont expect you to pay for my children ... but you are payinhg for someone's children. My child goes to the same daycare as others who are paying half the cost (some less than half). I know I can afford to send them, just barely ($1200 a month), but don't kid yourself thinking you aren't paying for someone's kids ... so why not mine. Universal daycare is just that, universal daycare.

Wouldn't it be something if your [and by your I mean "everybody's"] taxes were lowered by $4,000 [in general] and your wife [and by your wife I mean "one person in every household"] could stay home? Of course, it would mean that you [and by you I mean . . . ] would need to cut back a little bit . . . . not buy that amazing plasmarific TV and may have to watch RDS [come on now, there are only so many sacrifices that can be expected from a person, no?] in regular digital instead of HD . . .

Maybe it's because I'm of a generation where the government didn't provide everything for me. I paid my student loans back in full [and didn't declare bankruptcy or whine that I had to repay] . . . I took cheap vacations tenting and went to the beach with my family instead of borrowing to go to Disneyland . . . I adjusted my schedule so that I could look after my kids when my wife worked and vice versa [so I know the pain of getting kids off to daycare on time and answering "you let them wear that?" at the end of the day].

Have you read my thread on how me and my wife are trying to get by? She bikes to work at the crack of dawn, then bikes to my work so she can go pick up the kids.... she is losing lots of weight, but it is a huge hassle. Lowering my taxes by $4000 would be welcomed, but I am paying $14, 400 a year in daycare fees .... while others are paying a fraction of that and get to sit at home. I have nothing against the low income families having subsidized spots in daycare, but it is a two-tiered system and nobody complains about subsidizing those spots .... just saying there has to be a better way. Not sure what it is though.

All that to say: universal health care? yes. money for the military? yes. universal day care? tax breaks yes, $5.00 $7.00 a day, no. [and this from someone very involved in the day care system].

If only it was $5 or $7 dollars a day ... I am paying $30 dollars/day/child.

[franko]

Skilly: maybe we should take this to another thread and leave this as an election thread. But until we do . . .

. . . and I know you know that this is a general discussion, not a "you" discussion and that when I say "you" I mean . . .

Sept 9, 2008 9:11:35 GMT -5 Skilly said:

No I dont expect you to pay for my children ... but you are payinhg for someone's children. My child goes to the same daycare as others who are paying half the cost (some less than half). I know I can afford to send them, just barely ($1200 a month), but don't kid yourself thinking you aren't paying for someone's kids ... so why not mine. Universal daycare is just that, universal daycare.

We aren't into universal daycare except in Quebec . . . and I disagree with it. I have no problem with compassionate help -- I'd rather pay for a single mother to have help with daycare costs so she can work than pay for her to sit home on welfare . . . it's better for her state of mind and being!

Lowering my taxes by $4000 would be welcomed, but I am paying $14, 400 a year in daycare fees .... while others are paying a fraction of that and get to sit at home.

I too have a problem with that. A big problem!

I have nothing against the low income families having subsidized spots in daycare, but it is a two-tiered system and nobody complains about subsidizing those spots .... just saying there has to be a better way. Not sure what it is though.

Nor do I . . . but here's a start: quell the bloated bureaucracy. Do you know how much money is spent on salaries (and I mean high salaries) for people to sit in offices with their support staff and Blackberries and . . . ? Do you know how many panels are convened every year to discuss "daycare issues"? 15 years ago my wife was involved in such a panel -- one of the first that was to do an in-depth study of the daycare situation in Ontario. They are still convening panels and study groups for the same questions and getting the same answers . . . but the higher-ups justify their salaries by having these gatherings and studies . . . then go who-knows-where to find out how others are "doing" day care (and finding out that it is the same as we are). Money is not going where it is needed -- to those who need care, and to the workers.

My wife -- in a government-sanctioned licensed home day care (which means that she has to follow the same strictures as a public building-based care facility) -- earns about $10/hour, works from just after 7:00 am until between 5:00 and 5:30 pm, grabs lunch on the run (eats as she feeds kids, changes diapers, etc), has no coffee break, receives no benefits, has no sick days nor holidays(she doesn't work she doesn't get paid). I shake my head -- she considers this an important part of her life -- disagrees with private care (believe it or not, $50. a day and more here, and she's good -- she'd get it!) and disagrees with centre-based care (too many children. so gives up benefits like crazy).

If only it was $5 or $7 dollars a day ... I am paying $30 dollars/day/child.

That's the Quebec model that "universalists" plug as needed for the rest of the country.

My answer to how it should be done: income-based care. Each year you provide access to your [whatever form] and you pay on a sliding scale. You earn $100,000 as a family; full price. You earn $30,000 as a family; not full price

In Ontario, it's debt-based care. Two actual situations: [1] single mother, earns under $30,000 a year, is careful with money, has no debt -- lives on a "cash-only" basis; older car is paid off and she keeps it "because it runs". Subsidy denied. [2] two-income family, earns almost $100,000 a year, is not careful with money, has run up credit card debt; car paid off within past six months. In applying for subsidy is told that the debt load has lowered and so they will no longer receive full subsidy [yes, has been receiving full subsidy even though they earn what they earn]. That night they go out, trade their car in for a new one [and not a compact base-model vehicle either] and reapply . . . and receive full subsidy again. In my "consultancy" I'd end that in a heartbeat [and make sure you get subsidized care, of course!]

[Deleted]

I heard on A-News last night (local news) that Stephane Dion was making a pretty big name for himself with his recent speeches. Can anybody confirm or deny this, whoever's been listening to what he has to say?

[Doc Holliday]

Sept 9, 2008 8:04:11 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Let's see ... I am paying $60 a day in daycare fees ... Harper gives me $200 a month. So he pays for 3 days a month. Gee thanks .... who is paying for the other 17 days I wonder?

Increasing daycare spaces isnt going to lower the cost either.... with billions of surplus, (ok maybe not anymore with the way he is willy-nilly tossing cash around) we could have had the best daycare services on the planet. But ohhh nooooo!!!!

The last thing you want is to have the goverment run a universal daycare system... We have this now in Quebec and it's a huge big mess... The minute the daycare centers got public every employees became unionnized civil servants and those that were making 10-13$ dollars an hour can now make 15-20$ (and I don't even include the social benefits they now get) on the back of tax payers, thank you very much. On top of it we now have regional superstructures that run daycare centers and the people running these structures are often making in the area of 100K/year. So not only is the system way more costy than it should be, but to top it all off, daycare centers have huge waiting lists so many parents actually have to pay for a private daycare centers without any form of goverment aid. I'm all for subsidizing parents but keep the day care centers private.

[CentreHice]

Harper and Layton have told the networks that they won't participate in a televised debate if Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader) is allowed to join in.

Harper is worried that she's just a shill for the Liberals...and I don't know what Layton's problem could be.

The Green Party has every right to be in those debates....I mean, if a party that's bent on breaking up the country as we know it (Bloc) is allowed, what's the big deal?

It seems odd that Harper/Layton would feel threatened by the Green Party. Harper smells a majority government in the works...and he's worried about Elizabeth May?

Also...how about the PC attack ad which was withdrawn. A Puffin crapping on Dion's shoulder. Harper has apologized....but still....I'm really starting to dislike our PM.

Are we a rudderless ship right now or what?

[franko]

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Harper and Layton have told the networks that they won't participate in a televised debate if Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader) is allowed to join in.

Harper is worried that she's just a shill for the Liberals...and I don't know what Layton's problem could be.

Layton is worried that she will snag some of his votes . . . Harper is all bluster . . . he wants May in, to steal votes for the three parties left of his.

The Green Party has every right to be in those debates....I mean, if a party that's bent on breaking up the country as we know it (Bloc) is allowed, what's the big deal?

The excuse: if the Greens are in, why not the Marxists? The Christian Heritage Party? The Rhinos (that everyone should be afraid of -- the Rhinos will shame the main parties!).

The should set the boundaries for next election's debate right now: elected member in the house or 5% of the national vote, or something like that.

It seems odd that Harper/Layton would feel threatened by the Green Party. Harper smells a majority government in the works...and he's worried about Elizabeth May?

See above. Layton should be afraid . . . his party is moribund. Harper . . . not worried, but has to put in appearances.

Also...how about the PC attack ad which was withdrawn. A Puffin crapping on Dion's shoulder. Harper has apologized....but still....I'm really starting to dislike our PM.

Didn't see it . . . pretty useless focus groups watching it and OKing it.

Are we a rudderless ship right now or what?
Does ducks wear galoshes?

[The New Guy]

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Harper and Layton have told the networks that they won't participate in a televised debate if Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader) is allowed to join in.

Harper is worried that she's just a shill for the Liberals...and I don't know what Layton's problem could be.

Harper is worried - I think fairly - that there'll be collusion between the two parties. They've already shown a willingness to work together in Quebec and Nova Scotia by not running against each other. Having two working as one, even in a limited sense, tips the balance of power in the debate.

Layton is has even more to be concerned about. Not only does he face a potential (though less likely) attack from two sides (if May and Dion come out swinging together you can bet your life savings that they'll be pretty focused on Harper, but they might take a couple potshots on the NDP too), but if the Liberal and Greens come down together, then Layton will see his party get hurt.

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

The Green Party has every right to be in those debates....I mean, if a party that's bent on breaking up the country as we know it (Bloc) is allowed, what's the big deal?

That's debatable. The Greens have never elected a member of Parliment (they had one sitting before the writ fell, but damned if that didn't smell to high heaven of pre-election posturing rather than an actual shift in politics). Their platform is heavy on the environment, and... well... pretty much non-existent in other areas. At least the Bloc have a well developed policy platform in all areas, even if it is "Quebecois-first" themed.

That and the Bloc still gets a number of seats in an election.

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

It seems odd that Harper/Layton would feel threatened by the Green Party. Harper smells a majority government in the works...and he's worried about Elizabeth May?

He's (somewhat validly) worried about a May-Dion tag-team in the debate.

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Also...how about the PC attack ad which was withdrawn. A Puffin crapping on Dion's shoulder. Harper has apologized....but still....I'm really starting to dislike our PM.

Both parties have a history of bad choices when it comes to election ads. The NDP tend to fight a cleaner fight but that may be because the Conservatives and Liberals tend to beat the living snot out of each other well enough without them.

Sept 9, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Are we a rudderless ship right now or what?

Of course we are. The writ has dropped, the gloves are off, and it's time for everyone to come out swinging. The question is, will we still be when the dust has settled?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Sept 9, 2008 16:12:20 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Of course we are. The writ has dropped, the gloves are off, and it's time for everyone to come out swinging. The question is, will we still be when the dust has settled?

And it does tend to get petty from time to time.

Harper apologizes for 'tasteless' ad
By KATHLEEN HARRIS -- Sun Media
2008-09-09



WINNIPEG — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ordered his campaign team to shut down parts of a Conservative Party website showing a puffin pooping on Stephane Dion, calling it "tasteless and inappropriate."

Speaking at a Winnipeg vegetable warehouse, Harper apologized for the tacky web attack designed to appeal to "South Park Conservatives."

But Liberal Leader Stephane Dion predicted the nasty smear would backfire.

“This is saying more about them than about us ... because I know that most Conservative voters will disagree with that and that may change their vote,” he said in Montreal.

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2008/09/09/6712176-ap.html

[Skilly]

hmmmmm the Puffin is the provincial bird of Newfoundland ... is Harper saying that NL will poop all over Dion even after he gets our 7 seats?

Harper is a dangerous man. If he gets a majority, God help the country. Any election promise this guy makes isn't worth the verbal air space he says it in ... even a written promise means nothing to this man.

I had no intention of voting for Dion ... but the past two days he has impressed me. He was spot on today when he said that Harper will say and do anything to get elected, and that his campaign promises are short-sighted and for the now.....

[franko]

campaign promises are short-sighted and for the now

And this, Skilly, is differnt from every other political party . . . how?

Campaign promises are made so that the party is elected . . . then reality sets in . . . especially when the party in power is thrown out. Count on it: if Dion is elected (not very likely, but still) within a couple of weeks we'll hear "we were going to, but the Conservatives left hings in such a mess that we just can't".

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Sept 9, 2008 18:14:06 GMT -5 franko said:

campaign promises are short-sighted and for the now

And this, Skilly, is differnt from every other political party . . . how?

Campaign promises are made so that the party is elected . . . then reality sets in . . . especially when the party in power is thrown out. Count on it: if Dion is elected (not very likely, but still) within a couple of weeks we'll hear "we were going to, but the Conservatives left hings in such a mess that we just can't".

IMHO, most voters are pretty much the same in that they seem to want to be lied to. And when those lies aren't met, these same voters tend to boot those bums out of office rather than elect the new ones in.

Pretty much the same circle time and time again.

Cheers.

[franko]

Just about fell over: one of those "Harper is cuddly" commercials came on . . . my wife said "I hate those commercials . . . I hate Conservative policy . . . but Harper is probably the best of the bunch for Prime Minister" [that's when I almost fell over]. But then my real wife reappeared and said "but I could never vote for him".

[The Habsome One]

Sept 9, 2008 18:04:07 GMT -5 Skilly said:

hmmmmm the Puffin is the provincial bird of Newfoundland ... is Harper saying that NL will poop all over Dion even after he gets our 7 seats?

Harper is a dangerous man. If he gets a majority, God help the country. Any election promise this guy makes isn't worth the verbal air space he says it in ... even a written promise means nothing to this man.

I had no intention of voting for Dion ... but the past two days he has impressed me. He was spot on today when he said that Harper will say and do anything to get elected, and that his campaign promises are short-sighted and for the now.....

How exactly is Harper dangerous? And to whom? I seem to recall the Harper government making good a bunch of campaign promises as soon as they got elected.

Do you remember the Liberals long ago saying they'd replace the GST? They bashed it heavily while in opposition, but did they change it or even reduce it when the got into power?

As for the fixed election date promise, I can't comprehend how anyone can be truly upset about this. To me, it really only makes sense having fixed election dates apply to majority governments. Why should only the opposition parties be able to force an election? If a minority government feels they need more seats to govern effectively and have an opportunity to get them, so be it.

[PTH]

Sept 9, 2008 22:24:27 GMT -5 The Habsome One said:

How exactly is Harper dangerous? And to whom?

-Women's rights are at risk when a foetus's rights start counting

-any living human - the Tories will look into the death penalty if they think they can get away with it

-anyone who wants to contest a government decision (the Tories cut a program helping people who wanted to take the government to court - essentially saying that the government is never wrong)

-anyone who uses a computer, a VCR, a digital recorder or any other type of digital media, given the new digital copyright bill (more severe than the DMCA, which is already considered a failure because of tons of unexpected side effects).

As for the fixed election date promise, I can't comprehend how anyone can be truly upset about this. To me, it really only makes sense having fixed election dates apply to majority governments. Why should only the opposition parties be able to force an election? If a minority government feels they need more seats to govern effectively and have an opportunity to get them, so be it.

In short, it's OK to use the power to call an election for partisan purposes if you're a minority government and want to decide when elections will be (rather than just waiting for a confidence vote), but it wouldn't be OK for a majority government ? That's just non-sensical to me....

I wasn't particularly in favor of the fixed-date election bill, but it seems completely hypocritical to me to pass such a bill and then not respect it...

[PTH]

Sept 9, 2008 20:44:49 GMT -5 franko said:

Just about fell over: one of those "Harper is cuddly" commercials came on . . . my wife said "I hate those commercials . . . I hate Conservative policy . . . but Harper is probably the best of the bunch for Prime Minister" [that's when I almost fell over]. But then my real wife reappeared and said "but I could never vote for him".

I kind of understand her. I hate Harper's policies, but he's probably the most effective leader in terms of implementing his policies... A Harper at the head of the Liberal party (ie: with policies I can live with) would probably be enough to make me forget Adscam and all that baggage...

[franko]

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

Women's rights are at risk when a foetus's rights start counting

Are you OK then with abortion until birth, or is there some limit that should be set? Not attacking; just wondering.

-any living human - the Tories will look into the death penalty if they think they can get away with it

And your justification for saying this? Sounds like "the Torys are scary" all over again. While there are some conservative-type people that may think this way, the debate in Canada re: the death penalty is over [same with outlawing abortion -- it'll never happen].

anyone who wants to contest a government decision (the Tories cut a program helping people who wanted to take the government to court - essentially saying that the government is never wrong)

Actually, the program cut regarded Charter appeals -- some appeals were frivolous but we were still paying. I'd like the program reinstated but with some checks and balances.

anyone who uses a computer, a VCR, a digital recorder or any other type of digital media, given the new digital copyright bill (more severe than the DMCA, which is already considered a failure because of tons of unexpected side effects).

It probably won't be brought before parliament again, whoever gets in.

What about the "green shift" -- how do you feel about it?

[The New Guy]

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

-Women's rights are at risk when a foetus's rights start counting

Risk is over-blown and I think more "anti-right wing" than truly directed at the Conservatives. They've made no move to ban abortion in Canada whatsoever. Hardly a fair criticism. Unless you want to say the Liberals and NDP are going to turn us into the next China.

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

-any living human - the Tories will look into the death penalty if they think they can get away with it

See above. Speculation on what the Conservative might do if they could simply erase the past fifty or so years of law and government in Canada isn't playing fair. Granted, politics isn't really about playing fair...

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

-anyone who wants to contest a government decision (the Tories cut a program helping people who wanted to take the government to court - essentially saying that the government is never wrong)

...

Hm? I suppose I should say something here. This is a decent criticism to which I have no response. Really I replied to the thread to smooth out some of your unjust criticisms. This is a justifiable one. So moving on....

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

-anyone who uses a computer, a VCR, a digital recorder or any other type of digital media, given the new digital copyright bill (more severe than the DMCA, which is already considered a failure because of tons of unexpected side effects).

Yes, but remember while they were in power the Liberal party were pushing this agenda down everyone's throat as well. The Liberal proposals (two or three I think) weren't as heavy-handed with punishment (which frankly is a Conservative fetish anyways) but were equally backwards. The DMCA Canadian Edition is going to be a Sword of Damocles over whoever wins this go 'round. The American Media is pushing hard for it. If the government doesn't move then they can expect to receive heavy criticism over the matter to come from the other major party (when the Conservatives didn't move forward right away on a Canadian DMCA when they took power the Liberals were all over them for it). If they move on it they'll take a hit for proposing something that is fated to be flawed (consider - a law on consumer technology written by MP's, most of whom belong to an 'old boys club' and who are unable to get their VCR to stop flashing 12:00. It's doomed I tells ya...)

That said, the Canadian DMCA is one of two big reasons (and a thousand little reasons) why I am not voting Conservative this time around.

Sept 9, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 PTH said:

In short, it's OK to use the power to call an election for partisan purposes if you're a minority government and want to decide when elections will be (rather than just waiting for a confidence vote), but it wouldn't be OK for a majority government ? That's just non-sensical to me....

I wasn't particularly in favor of the fixed-date election bill, but it seems completely hypocritical to me to pass such a bill and then not respect it...

I understand why Harper can get away with it. To try and force a minority government to work for a set term is not what one would call a good idea when one wants the government to run smoothly.

I understand why Harper wants to run one now. There's blood in the water. The Conservatives are popular. Dion and the Liberals are nearly dead in the water.

What irks me is that the government will spend so many millions of dollars when it's not necessary. Harper's right. The law as written does not apply to him. But the spirit should. That loophole was left so that a non-functioning government could be terminated. Not so that a functioning minority government could aim for a majority.

Frankly, Michelle Jean should've refused to dissolve Parliament. She should've sent Harper back to the House to work until it was clear that the government couldn't work. Though I suppose it would've been a fairly simple matter to do (attach confidence to a motion calling Layton, Dion and Duceppe enemies of the state and see how long it would take that to get shot down) it should've been a prerequisite. Or she should've at least called the other party leaders and asked them if they wished to try to form a government. Imagine that - Harper says he wishes to dissolve government and Dion or Layton steps up and becomes the next Prime Minister because they're willing to at least try.

[Skilly]

Sept 9, 2008 22:24:27 GMT -5 The Habsome One said:

How exactly is Harper dangerous? And to whom? I seem to recall the Harper government making good a bunch of campaign promises as soon as they got elected.

Ok you name the promises he kept ... and I'll name the promises he broke and we see who wins ..

Off the top of my head the broken ones (the major ones) to me are the tax on income trusts (which Harper said he wouldn't do 3 times), the equalization promise (which NL and NS got in writing), and the Kelowna Accord.

Then there was the promise on reducing the federal fuel tax if the price goes above 85 cents ...

Oh well ... a quick google gives you 109 reasons why Harper is a dangerous man...

List of Broken Promises

[franko]

Sept 10, 2008 8:11:08 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Frankly, Michelle Jean should've refused to dissolve Parliament. She should've sent Harper back to the House to work until it was clear that the government couldn't work. Though I suppose it would've been a fairly simple matter to do (attach confidence to a motion calling Layton, Dion and Duceppe enemies of the state and see how long it would take that to get shot down) it should've been a prerequisite. Or she should've at least called the other party leaders and asked them if they wished to try to form a government. Imagine that - Harper says he wishes to dissolve government and Dion or Layton steps up and becomes the next Prime Minister because they're willing to at least try.

As much as the GG is "the Queen's representative", she is still nothing more than a figurehead.

Besides, had she done that we'd have had a winter election instead of a fall election.

[franko]

Sept 10, 2008 8:18:39 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Sept 9, 2008 22:24:27 GMT -5 The Habsome One said:

Ok you name the promises he kept ... and I'll name the promises he broke and we see who wins ..

Skilly Skilly Skilly . . . you have this bizarre notion that governments are accountable to the promises the make! Every promise made goes to video review ["upon further review . . . "].

Liberal, Conservative, NDP . . . every promise must be taken with

[Skilly]

Sept 10, 2008 9:03:46 GMT -5 franko said:

Sept 10, 2008 8:18:39 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Sept 9, 2008 22:24:27 GMT -5 The Habsome One said:

Ok you name the promises he kept ... and I'll name the promises he broke and we see who wins ..

Skilly Skilly Skilly . . . you have this bizarre notion that governments are accountable to the promises the make! Every promise made goes to video review ["upon further review . . . "].

Colour me stupid then ... I expect people who promise me something to actually mean it when I shake thier hand and say "thats the reason I am voting for you".

A 10 billion dollar promise is not something you can look past .....

[The New Guy]

Sept 10, 2008 8:59:30 GMT -5 franko said:

As much as the GG is "the Queen's representative", she is still nothing more than a figurehead.

Besides, had she done that we'd have had a winter election instead of a fall election.

She is and she isn't.

I mean honestly, zero effective power. I don't think she could have refused Harper saying I can no longer govern this country. But I do think she could've left the door open for the other parties to form a coalition government (had they chosen to). There's nothing that says she has to call an election just because Harper can't govern. It says she has to call an election if a government can not be formed.

Anyways, it'd never happen. But it would've been funny if Harper had just given away all his power.

[CrocRob]

Sept 10, 2008 9:58:57 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Sept 10, 2008 8:59:30 GMT -5 franko said:

As much as the GG is "the Queen's representative", she is still nothing more than a figurehead.

Besides, had she done that we'd have had a winter election instead of a fall election.

She is and she isn't.

I mean honestly, zero effective power. I don't think she could have refused Harper saying I can no longer govern this country. But I do think she could've left the door open for the other parties to form a coalition government (had they chosen to). There's nothing that says she has to call an election just because Harper can't govern. It says she has to call an election if a government can not be formed.

Anyways, it'd never happen. But it would've been funny if Harper had just given away all his power.

I would definitely support a resolution that forced the Governor General to at least ask the other parties to try to form a government when the Prime Minister asks for a dissolution.
That way, there's an actual possible repercussion to dissolving the government on your own accord.

Would a government be formed? Probably not. But the people we elected for four years aren't suddenly incapable of governing just because the Prime Minister -- in essence -- gives up. Let our representatives attempt to govern for the balance of the term if they can.

At least, it makes sense in my head (which can admittedly not always be clear to others).

[BadCompany]

Am I missing something? Don't all Prime Ministers ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament when they want to "force" an election, whether they have a majority government or not? Wasn't that the whole point of the "fixed election date" thing? That governments - majority or minority - couldn't selectively pick and choose when Canadians would go to the polls?

Rather than enacting complicated rules for when a non-elected figurehead the GG can step in and overrule an elected government (if it's a minority... if the other parties want it... if it's been less than four years, three years, two years... if the moon is aligned with Aquarius...) why not simply hold Harper accountable to his own election promise and enact a fixed-date election law?

[franko]

Sept 10, 2008 10:39:14 GMT -5 CrocRob said:

But the people we elected for four years . . .

But we didn't elect them for four years . . . we elected them "until the next election".

Sept 10, 2008 11:08:38 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

Rather than enacting complicated rules for when a non-elected figurehead the GG can step in and overrule an elected government (if it's a minority... if the other parties want it... if it's been less than four years, three years, two years... if the moon is aligned with Aquarius...) why not simply hold Harper accountable to his own election promise and enact a fixed-date election law?

Because it's not the Canadian/British way? That's a US model, doncha know, and anything US is bad for Canada, bad bad bad [sorry to use your name in vain].

Seriously . . . what if the Harper government [or any in-power minority government] tried to enact some legislation that was so ridiculous that it could not be accepted by anyone [let's say the death penalty]. The government should fall over such a thing . . . but would stay on because they had a four-year mandate.

But I'm open . . . how would you do it? The minority government falls and the opposition takes over? But then what if the second minority tries to enact something ludicrous and is voted down? Then what?

But like I said, I'm open . . .

[BadCompany]

I must admit I thought it was a fairly simple proposal; simply tack on an addendum to existing election laws - an election must be held every four years on such-and-such a date.

There is no need to change the non-confidence rules; obviously if a government can no longer pass any legislation because it cannot garner enough votes in parliament then it has ceased to be an effective government and must be dissolved. Similarily, if the Prime Minister dies/retires/gets arrested then a new election must be called as well, as the government is no longer what it was when elected by the people.

Otherwise though, stick to the legislated date.

I always thought it was just a way to stop governments from calling snap elections whenever they thought the polls said they should. Brian Mulroney/Kim Cambell's Tories waited as long as they could to call an election, because they knew they were going to be kicked out of power and they were clinging to it - nearly five years after the previous election (November 88 to October 93). On the other hand, Jean Chretien's Liberals called elections every three years, knowing they had a monopoly on power. Clearly these governments were looking at the polls and calling elections when they figured it was best for their ruling parties (as Harper is doing now).

[The Habsome One]

Sept 10, 2008 8:18:39 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Sept 9, 2008 22:24:27 GMT -5 The Habsome One said:

How exactly is Harper dangerous? And to whom? I seem to recall the Harper government making good a bunch of campaign promises as soon as they got elected.

Ok you name the promises he kept ... and I'll name the promises he broke and we see who wins ..

Off the top of my head the broken ones (the major ones) to me are the tax on income trusts (which Harper said he wouldn't do 3 times), the equalization promise (which NL and NS got in writing), and the Kelowna Accord.

Then there was the promise on reducing the federal fuel tax if the price goes above 85 cents ...

Oh well ... a quick google gives you 109 reasons why Harper is a dangerous man...

List of Broken Promises

Most of those sites (such as the one you provided) are worthless, as far as I'm concerned. They're obviously not neutral nor credible. Much of what's claimed there as fact is clearly just strong opinions coming from deep anti-Harper sentiment.

As for the promises I'm aware of:
* Reduce GST - kept
* Reduce personal and corporate taxes - kept
* more support for Canadian Forces - kept
* new accoutability legislation - kept
* new child care benefit package - kept
* no taxing of income trusts - broken
* fixed-date election law - debatable; to me it only ever made sense to be only majority-government applicable.

The taxing of the income trusts was definitely a broken promise. Maybe it had to be done, but it definitely is a broken promise. I don't care about the election law.

I like that Quebec is recognized as a nation, but I don't like that Harper appointed an unelected senator.

I do like my taxes low. And I do like the idea that Canada will protect its territorial sovereignty regardless of what the US thinks.