|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 16:24:44 GMT -5
But, herein lies the problem. I voted for Layton and his policies, but those policies did not include those policies of the Liberals and Bloc. Hence, I feel I've been sold out. Cheers. Except in a majority government, you couldn't have expected to achieve the extremes of those goals, could you? Layton is still using your vote to push his agenda, except it's on a common ground with the Liberals. In fact, he's realistically getting more done for the platform you voted for than if he'd just voted down a confidence vote. I'm still not understanding the problem. You don't want the Liberals or Bloc in power, but that wasn't what your vote represented. That's what the accumulation of votes across Canada represents. Your vote indicated to your representative (and by transferrence, Layton) that he should use the power you've given him as your representative to achieve as much of the party platform as they can while government is formed. Isn't that what's going on? As I was saying to BC, I didn't give my vote to the NDP for them to defer it to a coalition government they have no control over. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Dec 2, 2008 17:11:34 GMT -5
I've enjoyed reading through the thread, some great insights from you guys, especially with the different perspectives. It prevents one from viewing things too narrowly. On the subject of Parliamentary reform, I once again have to harp that it's unlike that it will happen in the next few generations, if ever. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that serious reform would require constitutional amendments, and even if those amendments were only governed by the basic amending formula, it would be a herculean task to get it passed. To have real reform would mean that it is pretty much unanimously agreed upon that change needs to be made, and what those changes are, and such as an agreement will have to follow a defining event or moment. Could this be one such moment? Maybe, but I don't think so as I feel it helps create dissident feelings throughout the country. The time to reform parliament would have been prior to the creation of the cumbersome amendment formulas. Harper and the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. Getting rid of public financing was something that the Liberals and Bloq could not allow as without it the y would have seen themselves at an even greater disadvantage, if not the possibility of insolvency. The Bloc relies on financing for 86% of their funds, the Liberals 63%, NDP 57% while it is only 37% of total funds for the Conservatives. The opposition had to react in opposition to losing their subsidies, and without a majority Harper left himself and his government vulnerable. The second mistake the Conservatives made was backing down on the subsidy matter, thinking that the other parties would back down at all, which they also couldn't do for fear of actually looking greedy. The opposition are locked into coalition talks, even though they got the concession they wanted, for fear of looking like they were simply in it for the money, which they were. At least had the Conservatives not backed down on the ending of public political subsidies they would have had something to point at, but now the parties can say "you got rid of that promise but we're doing this because we don't think you are fit to govern in this economy". So now, Canadians are stuck with 3 possibilities. 1)The Conservatives somehow coercing the opposition into stopping this coalition stuff, unlikely to happen unless Harper resigns, and even then the 3 parties may be to far down the road to turn back. 2)Another election. 3)An NDP-Liberal coalition propped up by the Bloc. None of those are appetizing to me, from the little I've read about the economic "plan" I think it's too much money being spent on bailing out companies without a plan to be competitive (the auto sector), when that money could be better spent on infrastructure or public works projects in a time of recession. If you want to go into deficit in the short-term to try and kick-start the economy, I can understand that, just don't put all your money into an abyss in the hopes that you can fill it. As fascinated I am by the possibility of a coalition, I don't feel comfortable with the 3-party nature of it, especially since I don't really like the NDP's general fiscal policy, or at least what I think their fiscal policy is. The optimal solution, for me, would be to see Harper resign and a more centrist, less antagonistic Conservative take over as party leader and Prime Minister. If not that, then an election, although seeing how we just had one, if I was in the Governor General's place, I would give the coalition a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2008 17:24:07 GMT -5
The latest gossip from the Hill [and boy is it fun!]:
Elizabeth May . . . in talks to be appointed to the Senate and from there to a Cabinet seat. Environment, perhaps? didn't the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc rail against the Conservatives for doing that just a short year-and-a-half ago?
The Bloc . . . 6 MPs appointed to the Senate. need I say more?
what is the value of a soul today, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Dec 2, 2008 17:29:12 GMT -5
The latest gossip from the Hill [and boy is it fun!]: Elizabeth May . . . in talks to be appointed to the Senate and from there to a Cabinet seat. Environment, perhaps? didn't the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc rail against the Conservatives for doing that just a short year-and-a-half ago?The Bloc . . . 6 MPs appointed to the Senate. need I say more?what is the value of a soul today, anyway? I wouldn't do it in her place as I would try and put aside my personal beliefs and feelings before deciding to call an election or allow the coalition to govern, but if part of the deal is the Bloq get 6 senate seats I hope she decides to dissolve parliament and send us to the polls, cost of it be damned. I don't understand why they would appoint May to the senate, what would the 3 parties have to gain from it? Surely they could find someone non-political who they could all agree upon. Heck, I'm available and I need a haircut, the perks of being a Senator would come in handy, and it would be interesting to be on committees and such. Edit: Well, forget that, you have to be at least 30 to be a senator. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 17:52:30 GMT -5
Well, Harper certainly has a publicist in Mike Duffy.
Watching Mike Duffy Live right now....and it's wall-to-wall "getting into bed with the Separatists".
One thing I DO have a problem with: the fact that Elizabeth May (who got trounced in the last election) will play a part in this....perhaps even being offered a Cabinet position.
Optics go both ways.
My lord, this whole thing just stinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2008 18:11:22 GMT -5
Edit: Well, forget that, you have to be at least 30 to be a senator. I thought it was 60. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Dec 2, 2008 18:20:36 GMT -5
Edit: Well, forget that, you have to be at least 30 to be a senator. I thought it was 60. Constitution Act of 1867 says 30. Of course, in practice, I'd guess most people appointed are over 60. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2008 19:18:50 GMT -5
Constitution Act of 1867 says 30. Of course, in practice, I'd guess most people appointed are over 60. I was just trying to be funny. Failed again, I guess. But at least I'm consistent! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2008 19:26:00 GMT -5
The latest gossip from the Hill [and boy is it fun!]: Elizabeth May . . . in talks to be appointed to the Senate and from there to a Cabinet seat. Environment, perhaps? didn't the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc rail against the Conservatives for doing that just a short year-and-a-half ago?The Bloc . . . 6 MPs appointed to the Senate. need I say more?what is the value of a soul today, anyway? Just the senate seats? LOL! Wait and see..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 23:11:32 GMT -5
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we need another election. Let's put all the cards on the table, and have Canadians vote knowing what, exactly they are voting for. Regardless of how you feel about the coalition, the truth is nobody voted for it. You may have voted for a party, but you didn't vote for three of them (even if you now believe a coalition is the way to go). So lets follow the "spirit" of democracy, as opposed to the constitutional legality of it, and let the people decide; Do you want a Conservative majority? Or a coalition government comprised of the Bloc, NDP and Liberals? Simple question, and everyone will know what they are voting for. We'll also know what the backroom deals are; what does Duceppe get, what does Layton get, what does Dion get, and are we okay with all that? If part of this coalition agreement calls for Quebec to receive an extra $2 billion in transfer payments, are we okay with it? If the agreement calls for a 3% increase in the GST to pay for environmental programs, are we okay with it? Are we okay with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister? Would we be okay with a $5 billion deficit? $10 billion? Right now we have no idea what this coalition government is going to do. They have no platform, or none that was ever presented to the people anyways. That's not democracy. Put it to a vote. Yes, its a hassle and another $300 million spent, but that's what a democracy is - the people decide. Legally, constitutionally perhaps its allowed, but this is not the kind of democracy I want to live in. The Bloc-NDP and Liberals have all said if an election were called they would not go to the polls as a coalition but as three seperate parties .... and we find ourselfs once again faced with this mess a few months from now. Why? Because 65 percent of Canada does not want Harper to have a majority (and over 75, close to 80%) east of Manitoba! This is why coalitions are allowed to exist in our parliamentary system and YES it is a democracy. There have been numerous coalition in Canada's history. We formed a nation as a coalition government. This is nothing new. I don't think strong arm tactics of forcing every minor piece of legislation through as a confidence vote and then adding little right wing elements to it to embarass the opposition is very democratic either ... I don't think forcing a member I voted in to vote (along party lines and not regional lines) in favour of a budget that kills the Atlantic Accord is a democracy either ... I don't think allowing someone to switch parties when I voted him/her as one political party is very democratic either ... but it is apart of OUR democracy. You have been living in such a democracy a long time now. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 23:21:59 GMT -5
But isn't that the case with any minority gov't when it faces a non-confidence vote? That's the Parliamentary procedure. Perhaps it's time for re-vamp of sorts. The difference being that when a minority government faces a non-confidence vote it will either fail the confidence vote, handing power back to the people in an election, or it will pass the confidence vote a move on it's merry way. That said, you wouldn't find objection from me if you wanted to start reforming Parliament. I have a list a mile long. Thats not true ... minorities can also lose a confidence vote and have power taken from them without an election. It has happened before, as I said before this is nothing new. Harper was all talk. He said was was going to work with this opposition in these tough times and he acted like he had a majority and the first chance he got he tried to bully his right wing agenda through .... ...its easy to say that a coalition government doesn't deserve the right to govern, but a minority government doesn't deserve to govern either if it operates under bullying tactics and acts as if it were a majority by pushing their own agenda through with the constant threat of an election. Harper's economic plan was a mere pittance. His three big ways to save the government money were going to save 1/20 of one per cent ... thats how vastly important they were to the Canadian economy. Well 300 million is a tad more - if Harper feels we are that much in peril that we have to find savings under every rug than we simply can not afford an election. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 23:37:32 GMT -5
How do you feel now that the BQ - the anti-Canada party - now holds a share of the reins of power? Not sure if you directed this at me or not ... but I am thrilled!! I don't know why everyone fears the Bloc Quebecois. I don't like that the Libs and Conservatives kowtow to them (fearing separatism - like that is some evil). But the Bloc has done alot of good for this country as well since they've been in the House of Commons. If the rest of Canada would just take the wax out of their ears and listen to what the Bloc is saying, and actually listen, and get to understand the issues ... then their is nothing to fear. Even alot of Quebecers (ok the ones I hear on TV) are saying the Bloc is less a separtist party and more a federal regional party (much like the Reform Party was). And another thing ... all these Conservatives calling the Bloc "the devil" shows a total lack of respect and a lack of understanding. The Bloc got 50 out of 75 Quebec seats. Thats alot of Canadians that Harper and others are defaming by calling them childish names... I'll be the first to congratulate Quebec is they ever do separate. Good on them ... this very debate shows that our political system doesn't work and that many Canadians are out of touch with regional issues. This is how Newfoundland CONSTANTLY lives ... we have no power, even the PM of our country said Newfoundland votes don't mean anything (this is true!!). And it is one of the many reasons why I am a separatist myself ... My only wish .. Harper has 143 seats. The Coalition has 163 seats. There are 2 Independents. I wish, I hope, I pray that the elected Liberal and NDP MPs from Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland can see that they could now hold some power in the House if they work together (and you know maybe get that 10 billion dollar promise worked out). |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 0:02:48 GMT -5
And another thing ... all these Conservatives calling the Bloc "the devil" shows a total lack of respect and a lack of understanding. The Bloc got 50 out of 75 Quebec seats. Thats alot of Canadians that Harper and others are defaming by calling them childish names... It's all fear marketing. Everyone uses it when the Bloc or PQ is involved. "They want to break up our country." Nothing new in that PR department. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 3, 2008 0:18:13 GMT -5
This whole thing is why I think we, as a nation, should begin electing people based on their merits and not their party. It'll never happen, but independent candidates should be given more consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 1:02:33 GMT -5
Thats not true ... minorities can also lose a confidence vote and have power taken from them without an election. It has happened before, as I said before this is nothing new. Nothing new, he says. The only precedent for this I can find in Canadian federal parliament is the King-Byng affair, which was, frankly, horrendously different. King was governing without plurality in the Commons (his Liberals held 99 seats, the Conservatives help 116 and the Progressives, who by tradition supported the Liberals, held 33). After a number of scandals King himself decided that he no longer possessed the confidence of the Commons and requested Lord Byng, the Governor-General at the time, to dissolve Parliament. Lord Byng, however refused and offered the Conservatives (who held plurality in the Commons) the chance to govern. The differences here are obvious. King did not hold plurality in Parliament, and Harper does. King was also the party that requested Parliament be dissolved (without losing a confidence vote in the Commons), where as Harper will not be seeking a dissolution of the Parliament unless he is forced to by all parties of the opposition. In the end the result of the King-Byng affair was disastrous, of course. Arthur Meighen of the Conservatives was named the Prime Minister, the Liberals were outraged, they managed to convince the Progressives to join them, Meighen lost confidence by one vote and a new election was held anyways. On our side who knows. But do not say this has happened before, that this is nothing new. In that way at least this is exciting - we will see history made in a week or so, one which will likely change politics in Canada forever (much as the King-Byng affair did). Harper was all talk. He said was was going to work with this opposition in these tough times and he acted like he had a majority and the first chance he got he tried to bully his right wing agenda through .... ...its easy to say that a coalition government doesn't deserve the right to govern, but a minority government doesn't deserve to govern either if it operates under bullying tactics and acts as if it were a majority by pushing their own agenda through with the constant threat of an election. Harper's economic plan was a mere pittance. His three big ways to save the government money were going to save 1/20 of one per cent ... thats how vastly important they were to the Canadian economy. Well 300 million is a tad more - if Harper feels we are that much in peril that we have to find savings under every rug than we simply can not afford an election. You won't find debate from me that Harper has mucked up. I'm not a Harper booster, and I don't think I will change my vote from the previous election should a new one be called. But I abhor the fact that shady back-room dealings will allow an undesired coalition of the defeated to take power in my country. It is disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 1:29:24 GMT -5
Not sure if you directed this at me or not ... but I am thrilled!! I don't know why everyone fears the Bloc Quebecois. I don't like that the Libs and Conservatives kowtow to them (fearing separatism - like that is some evil). But the Bloc has done alot of good for this country as well since they've been in the House of Commons. Does the good they do outweigh the threat they pose by endorsing at almost every turn the ideals of Quebec Sovereignty? Can you please list some of the good they have done besides promoting an agenda I (and many others) fear could be the death of this nation. Yes, the Sovereignty debate Quebec is a moot one right now. But, who is to say that it won't raise it's ugly head once again should the BQ see a chance (you know, what with them now holding a great deal of power in Parliament and Jean Charest inching ever closer to defeat in Quebec). If the rest of Canada would just take the wax out of their ears and listen to what the Bloc is saying, and actually listen, and get to understand the issues ... then their is nothing to fear. Even alot of Quebecers (ok the ones I hear on TV) are saying the Bloc is less a separtist party and more a federal regional party (much like the Reform Party was). Except for, you know, the Statuts du Bloc Quebecois (leaving out accents - sorry, little interest in working out how to type them right now) of 2006 which state: Which essentially says the Bloc are a party dedicated to the ideals of Quebec sovereignty as best as my understanding of French can tell. And another thing ... all these Conservatives calling the Bloc "the devil" shows a total lack of respect and a lack of understanding. The Bloc got 50 out of 75 Quebec seats. Thats alot of Canadians that Harper and others are defaming by calling them childish names... I, for one, am against a sovereign Quebec. I think it would be the death of Canada. And frankly, I like Canada. Unless there's something about the above quote (and many other examples of their interest in such things throughout their history) that I'm missing, yeah - calling them "the devil" is not so far off. I'll be the first to congratulate Quebec is they ever do separate. Good on them ... this very debate shows that our political system doesn't work and that many Canadians are out of touch with regional issues. This is how Newfoundland CONSTANTLY lives ... we have no power, even the PM of our country said Newfoundland votes don't mean anything (this is true!!). And it is one of the many reasons why I am a separatist myself ... My only wish .. Harper has 143 seats. The Coalition has 163 seats. There are 2 Independents. I wish, I hope, I pray that the elected Liberal and NDP MPs from Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland can see that they could now hold some power in the House if they work together (and you know maybe get that 10 billion dollar promise worked out). So you're a Separatist. You and many others at home share those ideals and I don't blame you. I once did, and frankly I still harbour some of those feelings. In 1999 I was offered the opportunity to debate other students on the merits of Confederation (I was in High School at the time, it was an educational thing) as well as talk to some very important people about the state of Newfoundland at the time (I remember that one well, we had made the trip from Gambo to St. John's that day on a school bus, and we weren;t given time to change into more proper attire before meeting John Crosbie, the PM of Ireland and other luminaries, so I met them all with my bright scarlet Canadiens sweatshirt on). I was rather - shall we say passionate - in my condemnation of Confederation. Too much was lost. Too little was gained. But I've grown since then. Matured I guess (maybe not matured - maybe grown more insane). Like I said, I still harbour some of those feelings, but I also realize what Canada brings to Newfoundland. Yeah, we're ignored. But you know something - people in Toronto think they're ignored too. So do people in Quebec. And Alberta. And Iqaluit. But your vote does matter. Had you and the rest of Newfoundland not voted ABC we probably wouldn't be in this situation now (well, they'd need more than that, but it would drastically help Harper, no?). In the end the solution is not to take your ball and go home. It's not to turn aside the will of the people to place yourself in power. It's to work together to make it work for the betterment of all - not just your own party. The Conservatives did not do that, and now they face defeat. But Harper has tried - to save his own hide, no doubt - to be conciliatory. It is now the Liberals, the NDP and the BQ who stand in the way of governing by the will of the people. And that is something I will not stand for - ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 3, 2008 2:07:03 GMT -5
The difference being that when a minority government faces a non-confidence vote it will either fail the confidence vote, handing power back to the people in an election, or it will pass the confidence vote a move on it's merry way. That said, you wouldn't find objection from me if you wanted to start reforming Parliament. I have a list a mile long. Thats not true ... minorities can also lose a confidence vote and have power taken from them without an election. It has happened before, as I said before this is nothing new. Harper was all talk. He said was was going to work with this opposition in these tough times and he acted like he had a majority and the first chance he got he tried to bully his right wing agenda through .... ...its easy to say that a coalition government doesn't deserve the right to govern, but a minority government doesn't deserve to govern either if it operates under bullying tactics and acts as if it were a majority by pushing their own agenda through with the constant threat of an election. Harper's economic plan was a mere pittance. His three big ways to save the government money were going to save 1/20 of one per cent ... thats how vastly important they were to the Canadian economy. Well 300 million is a tad more - if Harper feels we are that much in peril that we have to find savings under every rug than we simply can not afford an election. Can you show me the evil right wing agenda? Cause I'm pretty evil and kind of there but I can't find it. Can you show me where this was a budget? Work with who? Which part of it was all of this was premaditated did you miss? And we sure can afford an election rather then seeing 50 billion get shoved down the drain. But don't worry though, if you think that you "lost" 10 billion, watch what how much the three Amigos will pour down the drain in Ontario and Quebec. And the structural changes they have in mind will keep on pouring billions of YOUR share down the drain. Ohh, and before I forget, the old OIL cash cow is now at 45 dollars and along with that went about 15% of the tax base. So the three Amigos will take their Ontario/Quebec pork projects out of a deficit and general revenue. YOUR general revenue. You don't like Harper, I get it, but be careful what you wish for..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 3, 2008 2:16:20 GMT -5
And you thought that I gave up on you and would revoke your right wing card.....  Well, after that image I think I'm about ready to tear up yours. There's no hugging on the right. Just billy clubs we use to beat the hippies! (I was going to say no bears on the right, but then who do we feed the hippies to after we club 'em?) LOL! When I found that image, I cracked up. The idea of two hard nosed right wingers hugging is umm...kind of WIERD! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 3, 2008 2:19:38 GMT -5
The latest gossip from the Hill [and boy is it fun!]: Elizabeth May . . . in talks to be appointed to the Senate and from there to a Cabinet seat. Environment, perhaps? didn't the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc rail against the Conservatives for doing that just a short year-and-a-half ago?The Bloc . . . 6 MPs appointed to the Senate. need I say more?what is the value of a soul today, anyway? I wouldn't do it in her place as I would try and put aside my personal beliefs and feelings before deciding to call an election or allow the coalition to govern, but if part of the deal is the Bloq get 6 senate seats I hope she decides to dissolve parliament and send us to the polls, cost of it be damned. I don't understand why they would appoint May to the senate, what would the 3 parties have to gain from it? Surely they could find someone non-political who they could all agree upon. Heck, I'm available and I need a haircut, the perks of being a Senator would come in handy, and it would be interesting to be on committees and such. Edit: Well, forget that, you have to be at least 30 to be a senator. May would be a chimera in the senate for left wing and enviro policies. As for the 6 bloc senators, wow, am I the only one who finds that ironic? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 3, 2008 2:32:34 GMT -5
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we need another election. Let's put all the cards on the table, and have Canadians vote knowing what, exactly they are voting for. Regardless of how you feel about the coalition, the truth is nobody voted for it. You may have voted for a party, but you didn't vote for three of them (even if you now believe a coalition is the way to go). So lets follow the "spirit" of democracy, as opposed to the constitutional legality of it, and let the people decide; Do you want a Conservative majority? Or a coalition government comprised of the Bloc, NDP and Liberals? Simple question, and everyone will know what they are voting for. We'll also know what the backroom deals are; what does Duceppe get, what does Layton get, what does Dion get, and are we okay with all that? If part of this coalition agreement calls for Quebec to receive an extra $2 billion in transfer payments, are we okay with it? If the agreement calls for a 3% increase in the GST to pay for environmental programs, are we okay with it? Are we okay with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister? Would we be okay with a $5 billion deficit? $10 billion? Right now we have no idea what this coalition government is going to do. They have no platform, or none that was ever presented to the people anyways. That's not democracy. Put it to a vote. Yes, its a hassle and another $300 million spent, but that's what a democracy is - the people decide. Legally, constitutionally perhaps its allowed, but this is not the kind of democracy I want to live in. And neither do I. I could easily accept all this if the Conservatives lost seats. I could accept this if the Libs/NDP had more seats then the Conservatives. But this backroom deal to overthrow a 6 week old government that INCREASED it's share of seats reeks of a power grab like nothing else. Worse still.... This power grab is formetting a massive amount of polarization in Canada. It's lost on no one in the West is marginilized again and this is nothing more then three parties who will serve Ontario and Quebec first and foremost. It's lost on no one on why Duceppe is in it. It is lost on no one that this was premeditated. *sigh* The only winner is Duceppe....for now.....but....... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 3, 2008 7:00:10 GMT -5
As for the 6 bloc senators, wow, am I the only one who finds that ironic? if it is only you and me then the country really is in trouble. But I think that rather ironic, western Canadians will find this outrageous. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 3, 2008 7:04:44 GMT -5
The Bloc-NDP and Liberals have all said if an election were called they would not go to the polls as a coalition but as three seperate parties .... and we find ourselfs once again faced with this mess a few months from now. Why? Because 65 percent of Canada does not want Harper to have a majority (and over 75, close to 80%) east of Manitoba! 75% of Canadians do not want Dion to be Prime Minister -- almost 100% west of Ontario ;D Skilly: I think I might understand why you feel the way you do , having lived out west lo th ose many years. There is a disconnect between eastern and western Canada much like there is a disconnect between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.
You are isolated because of geography -- the west is isolated because of philosophy. But there is a feeling of isolation none-the-less. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 3, 2008 7:09:30 GMT -5
If the rest of Canada would just take the wax out of their ears and listen to what the Bloc is saying, and actually listen, and get to understand the issues ... then their is nothing to fear. Even alot of Quebecers (ok the ones I hear on TV) are saying the Bloc is less a separtist party and more a federal regional party (much like the Reform Party was). I don't think so. The Reform Party's call to arms: The West wants inThe Bloc's call to arms: Quebec wants outI don't want this to degenerate into a discussion on separatism, but ultimately the Bloc stands for an independent sovereign country called Quebec -- well out side the federation. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 9:08:39 GMT -5
Does the good they do outweigh the threat they pose by endorsing at almost every turn the ideals of Quebec Sovereignty? Can you please list some of the good they have done besides promoting an agenda I (and many others) fear could be the death of this nation. They have, without even knowing it, held Canada together..... yes, held Canada together. They are the balance in the House of Commons that keeps the Conservatives and Liberals from destroying Canada. The quickest way to ensure Quebec separates, and thereby destroy YOUR Canada, is to give Harper a majority. Quebec basically prevents either party from holding that majority and having carte-blanche (must like the West will prevent a Liberal majority). If Canada doesn't work ... maybe Canada needs to put down. I can tell you one thing, it doesn't work from where I sit. Well that's a two-way street (well more like a four lane highway) .... if Ontario had of voted resoundingly Liberal than we wouldnt be in this situation either. Don't push the blame out East for us trying to stand up for our principles. While I am at it though I would like to veer off topic on this point. Before the election, Harper berates Ontario and his finance minister declares that "Ontario is the last place on earth that the Government of Canada would invest in". Ontario was so pleased at this they voted in 51 (out of 106) Conservatives (basically agreeing that Ontario should not be invested in). Then when Harper gives his little economic update without any stimulus for the Ontario auto industry or the Ontario economy, who complains? Ontario ... hello? ... you were told they weren't going to invest in Ontario.... that would have been enough for anyone out East not to vote for them. Now they are complaining that a coalition WANTS to invest in them ... time to make up your minds... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 9:33:11 GMT -5
Can you show me the evil right wing agenda? Cause I'm pretty evil and kind of there but I can't find it. Unless you consider motions to prevent strikes, give less pay to women for equal work AND limit public subsidies current left-wing policies or centrist policies ... than on this we will have to just agree to disagree. Harper gave an economic update. Agree? Ordinarily, and economic update has absolutely no business being a confidence vote. It is merely an update. BUT Harper decided that this was a fine time to throw some monetary measures into the update and declare it a confidence vote ... the government even went so far to say "No one comma will be changed" Why? Because they wanted these items passed to apease their core group of right-wingers. Also, he knew that the Liberals would not want an election in the midst of a leadership campaign and only 6 weeks after the previous election ... Can you show me where I said it was a budget? I said his economic plan (which was suppose to be an economic update to parliament, his plan for Canada in this economic turmoil) had monetary measures in it (which under Canadian Parliamentary Rules is almost always a confidence vote) which didnt have to be there ... and the measures would only save 1/20th of one per cent of Canada's spending (this year's spending) ... I read this in a newspaper and will have to find a link I guess.... I am not sure I know what you mean when you ask "work with who". The only reference I made was saying Harper said he would work with the opposition. In his acceptance speech he clearly said that he will work with the Opposition (that would be Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc ... and I can assume he meant their leaders too) to ensure his beefed up minority works. What 50 billion? In fact, the 50 billion expenditure was a Conservative policy (coporate tax cuts). It is true the NDP wanted it repealed, but the Coalition has agreed to leave that Conservative policy in place .... So there is no 50 billion wasted. In fact, it's 80 billion being wasted from where I sit (if you want to be a TRUE Conservative). 50 billion being watsed on corporations that dont need it (Conservatives) and 30 billion being wasted on a stimulus package if the Coalition forms government. Newfoundland has never had ITS share since joining confederation (which if we want to get into the whole "what constitutes a Democracy debate" I will show you how we joined in a very undemocratic process). Ontario and Quebec are always getting the nice pieces of meat from the cow .... I dont see how this will be different. At least now the government can claim the economic center needs to be propped up.... It isnt going to stay low forever ... but again, Newfoundland hasn't gotten the value of their oil EVER. We still don't ... this arguement may work for Alberta, but until the government signs over Hibernia to us, it appears to be status quo ... I don't ..... When the PM says to our Premier "I don't need Newfoundland votes to win this election" then the alternative is much better, and always will be. Harper clearly detests Newfoundland (you know, our defeatist mentality and all ... ) and the feeling is mutual. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 10:37:03 GMT -5
They have, without even knowing it, held Canada together..... yes, held Canada together. They are the balance in the House of Commons that keeps the Conservatives and Liberals from destroying Canada. The quickest way to ensure Quebec separates, and thereby destroy YOUR Canada, is to give Harper a majority. Quebec basically prevents either party from holding that majority and having carte-blanche (must like the West will prevent a Liberal majority). I'm not willing to give the party who seeks to break up Canada credit for keeping it together. Nope, sorry - not buying it without a lot more than those few words backing it up (didn't Harper win almost as many seats as Dion in Quebec? Doesn't that suggest that some parts of Quebec at least would prefer a Harper majority to a Dion majority). If Canada doesn't work ... maybe Canada needs to put down. I can tell you one thing, it doesn't work from where I sit. Is Canada not working? S'funny. I don't see people rioting in the streets or shutting down airports. From where I stand it is the Government of Canada that isn't working, and that's largely due to the egos of the people involved in it. Well that's a two-way street (well more like a four lane highway) .... if Ontario had of voted resoundingly Liberal than we wouldnt be in this situation either. Don't push the blame out East for us trying to stand up for our principles. Blame? Who was blaming you (or anyone on the East Coast)? I'm not assigning blame to anyone, and certainly not to a group of people who follow the same voting program I myself subscribed to in the the last Federal election (Anybody But Conservative). I think you must have me confused with someone else, because frankly that's skirting very, very close to an insult I might not stand for (calling me a Mainlander). What I was saying (to make things totally clear) is that your vote, and the vote of Newfoundlanders mattered. Yes, it would've helped had Harper killed the Liberals in Ontario. Or had Gilles Duceppe suddenly exploded in an anti-Quebec rant during the debate and all the Quebec voters turned Conservative in retaliation. But the ABC campaign in Newfoundland has contributed to the current situation. Had Danny not savaged Harper (or frankly, had it been anyone else but Danny doing the savaging, the great and mighty pit-bull that he is), Harper would've been two or three seats closer to his majority, and the Liberals would be two or three seats weaker. As an aside, Danny is the best thing to happen to Newfoundland and Labrador ever (possible exception being Mr. Crosbie). Too often we have stood aside and deferred to the will of Canada. Too often have our leaders made deals with the federal government, gathering small handouts to appease the populace while selling ourselves further down the river. Danny is a politician, and plays political games (like Crosbie before him) but he also is aggressive, and will go for broke. I don't always agree with Danny, but I do respect him a great deal for what he has done for Newfoundland. While I am at it though I would like to veer off topic on this point. Before the election, Harper berates Ontario and his finance minister declares that "Ontario is the last place on earth that the Government of Canada would invest in". Ontario was so pleased at this they voted in 51 (out of 106) Conservatives (basically agreeing that Ontario should not be invested in). Then when Harper gives his little economic update without any stimulus for the Ontario auto industry or the Ontario economy, who complains? Ontario ... hello? ... you were told they weren't going to invest in Ontario.... that would have been enough for anyone out East not to vote for them. Now they are complaining that a coalition WANTS to invest in them ... time to make up your minds.. Much like the BQ, what is the cost of the investment? Fiscal insolvency? Quebec separation? Maybe they're not satisfied because they realize the cure may be worse than the disease. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 3, 2008 11:33:40 GMT -5
The one thing that's clear in all of this is that nobody seems to want to serve the interests of the moderates, who I presume make up a fair proportion of the population. I guess that's what this coalition is intending to do (not repealing tax cuts, having a bailout) but it all seems mediocre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 11:45:57 GMT -5
I can really see this Coalition working ... the one thing that is tried and proven in Canadian politics is that the electorate loves to punish the party that forces an election. The past election was a little abberation simply because the Liberals seemed so disorganized.
The Liberals and NDP are not going to test each other and then feel the wrath of the Canadian Electorate. They are going to be buddy-buddy and use the "see we are good at governing" ads in 2 years time. If this doesn't work, they are both dead in the water (unless Duceppe decides to step in and take the blame - even then, IMO, the public will blame all three and Harper gets a majority). So there is no political gain to forcing the others to swallow a centrist or leftist political agenda ..... the only way either party comes out of this looking good is if it does work.
IMO, they deserve that chance. If it doesn't work, then we can have this election ... but right now there is no need for one. But trust me, mark my words, and dont have me say I told you so .... a Harper majority will bring on the dissolution of Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 11:59:57 GMT -5
Steven Harper pulling a play out of the Bush playbook ... let's address the nation.....
from cbc.ca
PM to address the country about political crisis
Prime Minister Stephen Harper will address the country at 7 p.m. ET on Wednesday to talk about the political crisis that could topple his Conservative minority government.
Harper will take to the airwaves to rally support to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition from taking power.
The coalition, which is backed by the Bloc Québécois, has asked for equal TV time to respond.
Harper's address comes as Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean is expected to arrive Wednesday in Ottawa, where she will immediately be thrown into a political crisis that she will have to resolve by deciding the fate of the federal government.
Jean has cut short a two-week visit to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary to return to Ottawa at night. On Thursday, she is expected to meet with Harper, whom many believe will ask her to suspend Parliament to avoid a confidence vote next week that could oust his government.
The Conservative government has already signalled it is considering all legal options to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition. That increases the chances that Harper will ask Jean to prorogue Parliament, which would suspend the current session until January, when his government would present a budget.
But the Governor General faces other political options as well. She could decide to call an election should the Conservatives lose a confidence vote set to take place Monday or allow the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition to govern.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, said on Monday that he has sent the Governor General a letter stating he has the confidence of the House of Commons to form the government should the Conservatives be defeated.
The Tories have already begun a public relations blitz to discredit the pact, which the Bloc Québécois has agreed to support for at least 18 months.
Radio and TV ads have already rolled out and countrywide rallies are planned for the weekend. The Tories have characterized the agreement as an undemocratic coalition beholden to a separatist party.
But opposition members have denied the charges. They fired back with charges of hypocrisy, citing a letter to the Governor General in 2004, signed by then opposition leaders Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, that discussed the prospects of dissolving Parliament if the government of Paul Martin, the prime minister, was to be defeated.
The letter stated that the opposition parties, which constituted a majority in the House, have "been in close consultation" and that if Jean was asked to dissolve Parliament, she should "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."
The Tories counter that that agreement was different because it didn't include a formal coalition.
The opposition parties said they made their move to form a coalition after Harper "did nothing" to address the current economic crisis. Their accord includes a proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package with support for the auto and forestry sectors.
Proponents of the proposed coalition also announced planned rallies across Canada to show support for the plan, using social networking websites such as Facebook to spread word of the events.
The coalition has also launched a series of radio ads and appeals to supporters, asking them to call or write to their local radio stations and newspapers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 12:25:16 GMT -5
Thats not true ... minorities can also lose a confidence vote and have power taken from them without an election. It has happened before, as I said before this is nothing new. Nothing new, he says. The only precedent for this I can find in Canadian federal parliament is the King-Byng affair, which was, frankly, horrendously different. Actually, there is another precedent, somewhat similar, in that the coalition is over an issue of national crisis, but different in that the governing party lead the coalition. The government of Sir Robert Borden, the Union Government, asked the Liberals to join his government to present a united front over an issue of national crisis as well. The issue back then was of course, conscription. Borden felt if Laurier was in his government the issue would die in Quebec .... but Laurier was against it, but many of his Liberal colleagues jumped ship and Borden got re-elected and conscription was passed in the House. |
|
