|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 4, 2008 23:59:00 GMT -5
But HA, countries in the early 30's did exactly what you're advocating...cutting spending. It resulted in a 10 year depression. Economics has come a long way, and if you could control the greed of people who equate success only with money or power, things would work reasonably well.
I'm not a fan of bailing out companies, but one also has to respect the fact that if you take 1/7th of the jobs in Canada out of the economy, we're all in big trouble. It's going to take some fancy dancing to avoid driving the world into a deep recession. I don't think Harper is anywhere near capable enough to do it.
Heck, we've been complaining for years about the crumbling infrastructure in Canada. To me, this seems to be a heck of a good time to do something about it. Yeah, we go into the red for a year or two, and then scale back. We create a goodly number of jobs now, when we need it, we improve our infrastructure for the next 50 years, and we smooth out the economy until it gets back on its own feet.
I lost all respect for Harper the minute I saw him send his son off to school with handshake. Cripes. Talk about cold. Not strong, but cold and mean. The best thing the Conservatives could do is dump him. You might even get me voting for them if they get the right guy at the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2008 0:57:29 GMT -5
Good points, HA.
Oh well....now we have a few weeks to see:
a. If the Coalition holds together.
b. If the Liberal party dumps Dion.
c. If the airwaves continue to be flooded with propaganda from both sides, in anticipation of a February election.
I sincerely hope that the PCs table an acceptable, workable budget and we move on with the minority government as is. Enough of this childish nonsense from all sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 5, 2008 1:14:52 GMT -5
If there's an election come February, I might run myself.
Even if it's only to speak my mind about the absurdity of it all, and the lack of representation we're getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 1:33:18 GMT -5
But HA, countries in the early 30's did exactly what you're advocating...cutting spending. It resulted in a 10 year depression. Economics has come a long way, and if you could control the greed of people who equate success only with money or power, things would work reasonably well. I'm not a fan of bailing out companies, but one also has to respect the fact that if you take 1/7th of the jobs in Canada out of the economy, we're all in big trouble. It's going to take some fancy dancing to avoid driving the world into a deep recession. I don't think Harper is anywhere near capable enough to do it. Heck, we've been complaining for years about the crumbling infrastructure in Canada. To me, this seems to be a heck of a good time to do something about it. Yeah, we go into the red for a year or two, and then scale back. We create a goodly number of jobs now, when we need it, we improve our infrastructure for the next 50 years, and we smooth out the economy until it gets back on its own feet. I lost all respect for Harper the minute I saw him send his son off to school with handshake. Cripes. Talk about cold. Not strong, but cold and mean. The best thing the Conservatives could do is dump him. You might even get me voting for them if they get the right guy at the top. We could debate the 30's depression and why fiscal conservatism is better then tax/spend measures and what it really took to get out of the depression. (shh...don't tell the masses it was a WORLD WAR). BUT, I rather disamantle your argument about "jump starting" the economy with what is practically unbridled spending. Infrustructure..... Crumbling infrastructure will continue to crumble. The cost of repairs are astronomical and a a billion or ten will hardly make much of a difference. There is a overpass project near me, it will suck out over 80 million for ONE overpass. ONE nuclear plant will cost 10 billion. The "trickle down" of infrastructure projects is simply not there BUT it looks and sounds good. This is not the 20's where 16,000 people build a dam. Think about this, construction companies charge about $200/hr per worker. That would generate about 24,000 jobs for one year ONLY in Ontario, while Ontario has lost 260,000 jobs. Now someone may argue about trickle down but they also must consider government induced waste. Bail out.... Do you know that the Dumb Three have millions of unsold cars/trucks? The bailout is NOT about building new plants with the latest technology and the latest designs to surpass the competition, but rather, to subsidize the dumping of those cars/trucks. I will give you an exact example of what I am talking about. Two years ago I bought a minivan for the "heavily discounted" price of $21,000. They have been selling the same minivan for $15,000 range now. That has to represent about a $3,000 loss for EVERY minivan. So the bailout will be used to subsidize the blow out of millions of cars/trucks...and then what? TENS of BILLIONs of unsold inventory intentionally produced. They KNOW that the market will not absorb the inventory and they KNOW the economy has slowed down, yet they produced and stuck them in lots. Tell me something...I am a businessman and you are my banker and I came to you with a business plan to do what the Dumb Three are doing. What would you say to me? I bet you wouldn't even lend me that penny you saw in the urinal. So tell me again how this bailout will help the industry, other then buy more time before it's death? As for your 1/7th number, it's a historical exaggeration of the cars TOTAL impact on the economy. It includes gas station attendants, mechanics, roads, repairs and every conceivable cost. The Dumb Three's collapse would affect the Ontario/Quebec economy but it wouldn't shut it down. 260,000 have already been lost in Ontario and there are no soup lines. Soo... Do you want to debate the long term effect of debt on the economy? Do you want to talk about what happens when a country goes too far into debt? There are dozens of South American countries that can provide great examples of.....economic pain. Do you even want to contemplate what debt will do to future entitlements? As for Harper.... I support the conservatives ONLY from my fiscal conservative principals (that he is about to slaughter). I do NOT believe in big government and I do NOT believe that one can tax and spend oneself to proserity. The notion is simply absurd. In fact, my conviction is so strong that I am going against my best interests. I have a lot more to gain as a business BUT I rather see market and personal debt corrections through a recession. We need to adjust to ever increasing, massively expensive entitlements (pensions and health care), rather then temporary band aids through debt. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 5, 2008 1:39:15 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Ford is the only one of the three that I would even consider lending money to. Of their respective situations, it's the best and in reality they may not even need it. Chrysler is not actually in horrible shape either.
GM is a dead fish though, and until the effects of GM's inevitable bankruptcy onto both Chrysler and Ford can be seen, I'm neither willing to lend anyone anything, nor willing to completely dismiss it.
The thing I don't totally understand about Harper and the Conservatives in general is that if alleviating Canada of debt is such an important issue, why reduce taxes such that most of what is being paid off is interest, not principal?
Was anyone really complaining about a 7% GST as opposed to 5%?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 1:56:03 GMT -5
The thing I don't totally understand about Harper and the Conservatives in general is that if alleviating Canada of debt is such an important issue, why reduce taxes such that most of what is being paid off is interest, not principal? Was anyone really complaining about a 7% GST as opposed to 5%? Harpers philosophy WAS to reduce parasitic costs that did not serve our major entitlements then throw that money into reducing the debt. The GST cut intent was to leave more money in peoples hand to spend. In a nutshell...fund the major entitlements and let the people keep and spend their money as they wanted. The left's argument with the GST was...FUND MORE PROGRAMS. We could discuss what those endless demands for MORE, MORE, MORE programs, but know this, every word I type would make me lose another inch of my hairline. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 2:05:13 GMT -5
If there's an election come February, I might run myself. Even if it's only to speak my mind about the absurdity of it all, and the lack of representation we're getting. If you win.... Make me the Finance Minister, protect me from the masses with those guillotine thingys and I will make Canada the financial envy of the world. On the other hand, an asteroid the size of Mars can be heading our way and people wont stop buying their seventh 52" plasma tv. Do you know..... In the last twenty years, if we put 20 cents of every liter of gas into paying down the debt AND banking the rest for "rainy days", just about now, we would own parts of the US? 2,200,000 barrels per day times 164 liters per barrel by 365 days by 20 years by TWENTY CENTS...........about $530 billion, give or take. Then of course, all the interest that we paid would amount to another 200 billion (?) or so. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 6:11:03 GMT -5
I lost all respect for Harper the minute I saw him send his son off to school with handshake. Cripes. Talk about cold. Not strong, but cold and mean. Talk about lose-lose. I don't know the man [or the family] and don't know whether or not he is a cold fish in private [he must be -- one of them thar conservative types -- probably beats his wife and feeds his children cold porridge while he eats steak], but if he had reached down and given his son a hug people would have been all over him for using his son as a prop, a media ploy, a photo op to show a fake warm fuzzy side. But you are right . . . it is cold. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2008 7:40:03 GMT -5
LOL! Just saw on the TV news that Bob Rae is going coast-to-coast spouting the benefits of the Coalition. Is he out of his opportunistic mind? Let it go, Bob.....let it cool off. Give the PCs a chance to come up with a budget in the next few weeks. Ontario's collective stomach is starting to turn. And here it is in print. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 8:05:13 GMT -5
In 1947 the laws were changed so that the vice-regal representative exercised the executive powers of his or her majesty while she was not in the state. As I understand it (and I might be wrong here, since such things are usually worded in languages far beyond human comprehension) the GG is the be all and end all so long as the Queen is not in Canada. The Queen, of course, retains the authority to dismiss her at whim, but she may not exercise any other executive power without first entering Canada. And I apologize, I realize my words might have been a bit harsh. I was, however, as I said, quite literally surprised that you've made so many errors, as I kinda have you pegged as one of those detail oriented, triple fact checking people. (-: I do try to check my facts as you will see in my future posts to you ...  But that is the beauty of this forum. Point, counter-point, get the facts straight , and then debate ... If anyone points out my errors, omissions, and yes even errors, I will promptly respond with my train of thought and an apology (if required). I have no idea if the Queen has to be in Canada or not ... I am not a monarchist, in fact I advocate for getting rid of it altogether. This is the point where you and I totally disagree, and I may not be doing justice to my train of thought. Explain to me how the coalition is circumventing the democratic process. In Canada, (under the Westminister model of parliamentary democracy) governing is all about Confidence. It is the most important convention in our democracy. In Canada, as I see it, we do not elect a PM, nor do we elect a government. In fact, we elect 308 members of Parliament, and then from that group a government is chosen. Now granted, having confidence is all very nice and easy when there is a majority government ... but we now have a minority government and plurality (from what I understand of the process) mean nothing ... confidence means everything. The executive branch of our government must have confidence in the legislative branch.... whoever has confidence forms the government. So to govern, you do not need the most seats, you need confidence .. and IMO when someone says a coalition overturns the election results they are misrepresenting how our democracy actually works. And from where I sit, they are doing exactly what the people asked them to do .. or what they are suppose to ask them anyway. And that's form a working parliament to avoid an election when it isn't necessary. There is a complete difference between a defeated government and a dissolved government ... a defeated government does not have to call an election. Usually, in Canada, a defeated government results in the resignation of the leader but it doesn't have to trigger an election. Agreed Yes ... precedent. People fail to see that Canadian Law, and Canadian Constitutional Law encompasses the entire country. We certainly are ... never before has a GG taken democracy into her own hands and shut members out of the House who had the confidence of the House... very undemocratic. I won't say this is wrong ... but I will give you the precedent as I see it , and allow you to pick out the differences or mistakes I made ..... The precedent is the 1985 election in Ontario. Frank Miller's Conservative's won 52 seats, David Peterson's Liberals won 47 seats, and Bob Rae's NDP (hey, maybe thisis where Dion got the idea?) won 25 seats. Miller tried to form the government but was defeated following a non-confidence motion. Peterson and Rae had alreay had an agreement in place and notified the LG. The LG asked the Liberals to form the government, and the did for 2 years with NDP support. The only real difference that I can see is that, technically, the Peterson government was not a "coalition", because the NDP did not have any cabinet positions. But if you substitute Liberal+NDP for Liberals and BQ for NDP ... then it is the exact same scenario. The only agreement Rae and Peterson had in place was to maintain the confidence of the legislative assembly ... which is exactly how our system of democracy is suppose to work. Well I believe they are the same .... have you seen the letters both wrote to the GG on the matter? I will post them below. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 8:10:41 GMT -5
To me, it all depends on WHY they want the majority. If it's to mainly look after Alberta's interests, then I have as much of a problem with that as I would have with Duceppe looking after Quebec's interests. And is it really a far cry to think it's been orchestrated, seeing as Layton and Duceppe are as power hungry as they come....and that Dion is still a wet noodle? There is a massive philosophical difference on dealing with the economy between the left and the right as well as other issues likle climate and federal/provincial powers. Harper believes in cuttting spending and ONLY getting involved with companies as last resort. Thus the "we will look into going into a deficit if the economy needs it". On the other hand, the Three Stooges have no qulams of spending like it wasn't their money. There is no free lunch. I can spend all night writting up why government just can't spend their way out of recession. Unfortunatly, Harper will now be forced to shovel money out the door simply because he has no choice if he wants to survive. It will be only the degree of who shovels more money, the three stooges with wheel barrels or Harper with a hand basket. In the end, we will ALL suffer from this. OK .. I understand the difference is spending policy ... BUT lets not forget that under the Liberals (with the help of Conservative GST measure) we had surpluses - so they weren't "spending it like it was their money" always. (yes yes adscam, but they still maintained Billions in surplus. Harper, and again I will concede that the economies are different, has brought those billions down to millions this year (if he is telling the truth) and a deficit next year ... primarily by promises over the past year to stay in power. So he also spends like it is his money, which is against his political economic philosophy, from what you explained above... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 8:20:27 GMT -5
Dec. 1, 2008
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Dr.
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.
As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.
The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.
In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois. This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada
Sept. 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Dr.
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 5, 2008 8:22:15 GMT -5
Screw it I'm voting for Marijuana Party!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 8:24:30 GMT -5
I heard an interesting quote today .... William Gladstone once said "Justice delayed is justice denied" , so what exactly is democracy delayed? Thank you Michaelle Jean for denying us our democracy.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 5, 2008 9:10:51 GMT -5
Those last couple posts (as has most of these threads) of yours were very articulate, Skilly. Just wanted to say I enjoyed reading them.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 9:27:16 GMT -5
OK .. I understand the difference is spending policy ... BUT lets not forget that under the Liberals (with the help of Conservative GST measure) we had surpluses - so they weren't "spending it like it was their money" always. (yes yes adscam, but they still maintained Billions in surplus. Let's also remember, Skilly, that those surpluses came on the back of downloading responsibility to the provincial governments [and that the provincial governments -- at least ours in Ontario -- generated surpluses by downloading to the municipal governments]. Doesn't matter how far the downloading goes, it's still me and you that has to pay -- it just makes the finance minister look good. For the record, I think that Paul Martin was the best conservative finance minister had in a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 5, 2008 9:42:05 GMT -5
This is the point where you and I totally disagree, and I may not be doing justice to my train of thought. Explain to me how the coalition is circumventing the democratic process. In Canada, (under the Westminister model of parliamentary democracy) governing is all about Confidence. It is the most important convention in our democracy. In Canada, as I see it, we do not elect a PM, nor do we elect a government. In fact, we elect 308 members of Parliament, and then from that group a government is chosen. Now granted, having confidence is all very nice and easy when there is a majority government ... but we now have a minority government and plurality (from what I understand of the process) mean nothing ... confidence means everything. The executive branch of our government must have confidence in the legislative branch.... whoever has confidence forms the government. So to govern, you do not need the most seats, you need confidence .. and IMO when someone says a coalition overturns the election results they are misrepresenting how our democracy actually works. First off, you're confusing the theoretical model with the real world. In theory we are supposed to chose Members of Parliament to represent the desires of our riding in the House of Commons. However the party system, and the damning consequences of a loss of confidence in the house, means that the political parties that make up our government kee a tight leash on their members. The theory is that the desires of the ridings can be fought for in caucus, but the will of the party must always win out in the House. How well does this work? Ask Loyala.... The end result is that instead of electing representatives we elect a party and its leader. Our will is expressed through an election, which happened what - seven weeks ago now? And the people spoke and it was the will of the people that Harper return as Prime Minister. No one wanted a minority Conservative government (well, maybe a few - but in Canada as a whole the Conservatives wanted a Conservative majority, the Liberals wanted a Liberal majority and so on) but it best reflected the will of the people, which is the source from which the government derives its power. Now the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc have used back room politics to forge an alliance which indeed does possess a majority in the House. Which means technically they have a right to form a government. Here we come to my first reason to conclude that the coalition is undemocratic: The parties believe the constitution has the power to grant them the right to govern this country. This is untrue. They may use the constitution to usurp the power of the people, but the authority to govern derives from one source and one source alone - the people. And the people spoke merely six weeks ago and told the parties (all four of them) to get together and form a minority Conservative government and to govern in that way. Short Summary for Clarity (because I can ramble on): Just because the parties wish it and the constitution, which is by its very nature a flawed document, permits it does not grant them the right to usurp the power of the people. They have not made an attempt to work together to form the government willed by the people - which the very principles of democracy compel them to do. Harper has backed down, has blinked first, and yet the opposition refuse to negotiate. They refuse to work together as willed by the people. That's issue number one. Issue number two will sound more like an anti-Bloc thing, but it is not. It is a reaction to parties with a vast gap in between their ideologies forming a coalition. As much as I detest it (simply because I detest such back-room deal making anyways) an alliance between the Liberals and the NDP is not so far-fetched that I believe they are overriding the will of those that voted for them. Ideologically the Liberals and the NDP are not that far off, and there are likely overlaps in the extremes of both parties. However the NDP and the Liberal both need to cross a wide ideological gulf to reach the BQ. As a result of this I believe people who voted Liberal and NDP have been duped, more or less, into supporting a coalition which they might not had they known its true face. Yes, there is a touch of hypocrisy in this, as the Conservatives reached out to both the Bloc and the NDP when Martin lost the confidence of the House, but Harper had options under that arrangement which the coalition did not. I believe in that Parliament that the Conservatives needed (much as they do now) only the support of one party to form a majority - either Liberal, NDP or Bloc. Consequently no formal accord was signed, because it would not be necessary- the Conservatives would simply need to negotiate and find one party to agree with their motions with the lowest asking price. Now the coalition needs the support of the entire opposition, which means all three will have a direct say in how government is run. If the proposed coalition believes it has the support of the people it should force an election, not simply take power. Then they can enjoy a proper mandate from the people. Damn right you agree (-: Yes ... precedent. People fail to see that Canadian Law, and Canadian Constitutional Law encompasses the entire country. That's not precedent. That's a flawed document written without a knowledge or understanding of a situation. That's why, in the Common Law system that we have in most of the country we use precedent to set our interpretation of flawed and limited documents. We certainly are ... never before has a GG taken democracy into her own hands and shut members out of the House who had the confidence of the House... very undemocratic. The GG has many times steered our Democracy in the direction he or she thought was best (mostly he, due to a paucity of female GG's in Canada's early years and a paucity of GG involvement in recent years). I won't say this is wrong ... but I will give you the precedent as I see it , and allow you to pick out the differences or mistakes I made ..... The precedent is the 1985 election in Ontario. Frank Miller's Conservative's won 52 seats, David Peterson's Liberals won 47 seats, and Bob Rae's NDP (hey, maybe thisis where Dion got the idea?) won 25 seats. Miller tried to form the government but was defeated following a non-confidence motion. Peterson and Rae had alreay had an agreement in place and notified the LG. The LG asked the Liberals to form the government, and the did for 2 years with NDP support. The only real difference that I can see is that, technically, the Peterson government was not a "coalition", because the NDP did not have any cabinet positions. But if you substitute Liberal+NDP for Liberals and BQ for NDP ... then it is the exact same scenario. The only agreement Rae and Peterson had in place was to maintain the confidence of the legislative assembly ... which is exactly how our system of democracy is suppose to work. Two differences: (a) It's provincial. Comparing provincial politics to national politics is a bit chancy, as provincial politics tend to be a bit more radical to begin with. (b) It's two parties who are not completely ideologically opposed. Also, I'd still oppose this, though not so vehemently as I oppose the current coalition. Well I believe they are the same .... have you seen the letters both wrote to the GG on the matter? I will post them below. So? Did I say it was in the letters written to the GG? Do you think that Dion, when he realized the optics were covered in a greasy black slime did not in fact model his letter after Harper's letter to ensure he could say "he did it first"? It is not hte letter I am upset about. It is the coalition. The (secret) agreement negotiated by three parties (and former leaders of two of those parties) which dictates how the government will be run and what the cost of each parties support is. Show me that document and then compare it to the one the Conservatives had (or rather, didn't have - because one does not exist) in '04. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 5, 2008 9:48:48 GMT -5
I heard an interesting quote today .... William Gladstone once said "Justice delayed is justice denied" , so what exactly is democracy delayed? Thank you Michaelle Jean for denying us our democracy. Pithy quotes are meaningless. Doubly so when you just pull out one word and replace it with another word that is unrelated to the first. I mean why not say "Treason delayed is treason denied" or "Ignorance delayed is ignorance denied" or any one of the other words I could use to describe the coalition (disaster comes to mind). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 10:33:43 GMT -5
First off, you're confusing the theoretical model with the real world. In theory we are supposed to chose Members of Parliament to represent the desires of our riding in the House of Commons. However the party system, and the damning consequences of a loss of confidence in the house, means that the political parties that make up our government kee a tight leash on their members. The theory is that the desires of the ridings can be fought for in caucus, but the will of the party must always win out in the House. How well does this work? Ask Loyala.... Actually I am not confusing anything ... every constitutional expert I have seen on TV and who have written letters to the editor in the papers I have read all agree ... the people elect parliament and parliament chooses the government. What you are fighting for is 100% true in a majority situation ... it does not pertain (IMO anyway) to a minority situation ... the people do not elect the government, parliament chooses it. Easily done in a majority situation, not so easy in a minority. If this were not so, then a PM could not appoint a person to the Senate and give the a cabinet position (but he can), and parliament can choose to switch allegiances. It all boils down to confidence. The end result is that we elect parliament ... we will just have to agree to disagree. Again .. it was the will of parliament that Harper be PM. WE DO NOT ELECT A PM in Canada like they do a president in the states. When parliament is elected, someone has to show the GG they have the confidence of parliament. In a majority it is easy, because like you said, no one wants to get kicked out of caucus. In a minority it is not so easy. Theorhetically, (yes only theory, but illustrative) a person who is an independant could govern the country if he shows he has the confidence of the House. Not likely to happen, I know ... but every sitting member in the House could be PM, with the confidence of the House. I didn't register a vote for the other 307 member of parliament ... they were not the reflection of my will. I, like every Canadian, voted in one riding and elected one member of parliament to go to Ottawa to choose a government.... thats how this style of democracy works. Again I feel (and you can call me wrong if you like) that you are misrepresenting our type of democracy. The people do not vote for a government, we vote for a parliament and slice it however you like ... it is up to parliament to choose a government. The government is appointed by the head of state based on who can secure confidence in the House of Commons - and it is the same for majority and minority governments If the people truly elected the government than 62% voted against this one ... but that isnt the case. People elect a parliament and once again parliament choose the government. In fact they did .... they gave the government their suggestions, none were included in the update. This caused the House to lose confidence - which is the very essential convention of our democracy. Once it is lost, their is no turning back ... there are no mulligans, no "oopsies" .... which is why M.Jean, IMO, failed in her duty. No confidence = No governing power. The fact is there is proof that Harper had a deal with the entire opposition back then ... whether he need them all or not. But you are incorrect that Harper didn't need the Bloc ( edit: reread your post, you said that he needed only one party and you are right, but it was the Bloc, which is a big part of your objection this time.... The 38th parliament was comprised of 135 Liberals, 99 Conservatives, 54 BQ, 19 NDP and 1 Independent ... when parliament was dissolved there was 133 Liberals, 98 Conservatices, 53 BQ, 18 NDP and 4 independents. Harper quite clearly NEEDED the Bloc ..... which is why Duceppe signed the letter. If not, Clarkson could not do anything for Harper could not prove he had the confidence of the House. Again I say, it reeks of hypocrisy. There is no need. The people elected the parliament, the parliament chooses government. Precedent in Constitutional Law encompasses all the constitution ... including the provinces (we all use the same Westminister system). |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Dec 5, 2008 10:42:44 GMT -5
Dion, Harper and Layton are flying on the Executive Airbus to a gathering in British Columbia when Dion turns to Harper and says, chuckling, "You know, I could throw a $1000 bill out the window right now and make someone very happy."
Harper shrugs and replies, "Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people happy."
Not to be outdone, Layton says, "Well I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people happy."
The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such arrogant asses back there.
I could throw all three of them out the window and make 32 million people happy."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 10:46:45 GMT -5
OK .. I understand the difference is spending policy ... BUT lets not forget that under the Liberals (with the help of Conservative GST measure) we had surpluses - so they weren't "spending it like it was their money" always. (yes yes adscam, but they still maintained Billions in surplus. Harper, and again I will concede that the economies are different, has brought those billions down to millions this year (if he is telling the truth) and a deficit next year ... primarily by promises over the past year to stay in power. So he also spends like it is his money, which is against his political economic philosophy, from what you explained above... Simply put, you need to look at surpluses in context. If I take 65% of your income and show a surplus, it's NOT the same as taking 50% of your income and show no surplus. The fundamantals....the absolute, involatile Laws of Governments. Governments do NOT produce wealth. Taxes are NOT wealth creation. Taxes area restribution of wealth. The role of the government is to redistribute wealth through taxes. I am not trying to be didactic or difficult here or a smart a$$. What I am trying to do is to dispel the notion that governments can create something out of nothing and everybody will be richer. They can go into debt but again, that is not creating wealth. They can print MORE money, but AGAIN, that is not wealth but rather a dilution of existing wealth and a HIDDEN means of taxation. If a widget is worth 50 quarks and the government prints twice as many quarks, the widget is worth 100 guarks. The inerit value of the widget is still there but the value of the quark had quacked. Of course, it's a million times more complicated then that BUT the fundamantal reasoning/logic/rules don't change. Now if you can excuse me, I need to make more quarks.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 10:52:43 GMT -5
OK .. I understand the difference is spending policy ... BUT lets not forget that under the Liberals (with the help of Conservative GST measure) we had surpluses - so they weren't "spending it like it was their money" always. (yes yes adscam, but they still maintained Billions in surplus. Harper, and again I will concede that the economies are different, has brought those billions down to millions this year (if he is telling the truth) and a deficit next year ... primarily by promises over the past year to stay in power. So he also spends like it is his money, which is against his political economic philosophy, from what you explained above... Simply put, you need to look at surpluses in context. If I take 65% of your income and show a surplus, it's NOT the same as taking 50% of your income and show no surplus. The fundamantals....the absolute, involatile Laws of Governments. Governments do NOT produce wealth. Taxes are NOT wealth creation. Taxes area restribution of wealth. The role of the government is to redistribute wealth through taxes. I am not trying to be didactic or difficult here or a smart a$$. What I am trying to do is to dispel the notion that governments can create something out of nothing and everybody will be richer. They can go into debt but again, that is not creating wealth. They can print MORE money, but AGAIN, that is not wealth but rather a dilution of existing wealth and a HIDDEN means of taxation. If a widget is worth 50 quarks and the government prints twice as many quarks, the widget is worth 100 guarks. The inerit value of the widget is still there but the value of the quark had quacked. Of course, it's a million times more complicated then that BUT the fundamantal reasoning/logic/rules don't change. Now if you can excuse me, I need to make more quarks..... Yes .. I understand what you are saying (I think ..lol) ... but my point is that the Liberals created surpluses through Conservative means, and the Conservatives are currently using Liberal means .... ... so to stand up now and say we need Conservative measures to get us out of this, well as Franko aptly put, who are the Conservatives and who are the Liberals when it comes to the ecomony because the most conservative finance ministers we have had in the last few decades were Martin and Goodale (both Liberals)? Confused yet? .. I am ... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 10:55:43 GMT -5
For the record, I think that Paul Martin was the best conservative finance minister had in a long time. Et tu Brutus? May the Gods give me patience! I am going to steal your wallet and then I'll show you how nice I am by giving you 2 bucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 10:56:57 GMT -5
Yes .. I understand what you are saying (I think ..lol) ... but my point is that the Liberals created surpluses through Conservative means, and the Conservatives are currently using Liberal means .... ... so to stand up now and say we need Conservative measures to get us out of this, well as Franko aptly put, who are the Conservatives and who are the Liberals when it comes to the ecomony because the most conservative finance ministers we have had in the last few decades were Martin and Goodale (both Liberals)? Confused yet? .. I am ... ;D Huh? What? If you want to rewrite that in a different way I can respond to it tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2008 11:36:37 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere in this argument as long as, no matter who did what or what the policies are, the overall sentiment remains:
Conservatives = good/bad
Liberals = good/bad
NDP = good/bad
We tend to treat political parties like our sports teams that are burned into our psyches.
There is nothing illegal/treasonous/undemocratic in what the Coalition decided to do. I think it was a bad move, considering the economic times. But I also think what the PCs tabled last week was irresponsible and hypocritical, considering that Harper says he "wants to work with the other parties".
The best thing for the country right now, is for the PCs to table the best possible budget at the end of January, making the Coalition (if it's still around...and I hope it isn't) look absolutely foolish if it still goes for non-confidence.
-----------------------------------------
Bob Rae's coast-to-coast trip is pure folly, IMO. He's trying to look like a hero and take the reins of the Liberals. Dion should be gone, yes.....but not with such bravado. Everybody should just back off and wait for the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 11:35:47 GMT -5
Canada was stunned on Monday when it was announced that the Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs. The cup will be taken from the 2008 playoff champions, the Detroit Red Wings and be awarded to the Leafs, who didn't even make the playoffs.
How is this possible, Canadians ask?
Well, the Leafs have formed a coalition with the Eastern Conference semifinalists, the Montreal Canadiens, and the conference quarter finalists, the Ottawa Senators, meaning they now outnumber the Red Wings for on-ice victories.
According to current Leaf coach Ron Wilson "The Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition."
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is cutting short a European trip to try to resolve the unprecedented hockey crisis that could force a second playoff series, or see an opposing team coalition take the cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 11:41:55 GMT -5
For the record, I think that Paul Martin was the best conservative finance minister had in a long time. Et tu Brutus? May the Gods give me patience! I am going to steal your wallet and then I'll show you how nice I am by giving you 2 bucks. Hey . . . Martin may have been wearing Liberal Red but his policies are Tory bluish. As are his business practices [own a big company, register it elsewhere, and avoid Canadian taxes. of course, that's where the analogy ends, as he has his hand out for Canadian subsidy as well]. And Skilly is right in his analysis of Tory fiscal policy. Instead of coming in and cleaning up,they came in, cut taxes, and threw money around . . . our bureaucracy grew in the last couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 11:44:37 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere in this argument as long as, no matter who did what or what the policies are, the overall sentiment remains: Conservatives = good/bad Liberals = good/bad NDP = good/bad We tend to treat political parties like our sports teams that are burned into our psyches. Wait a sec now ... I was a die-hard Progressive Conservative when they existed, and even gave the Conservatives a chance when none would .... but when the PM of this country treats my province as insignificant ( I can win this election without Newfoundland) and reneges on clear promises he made to us ... well I reserve the right to switch. I'd never switch hockey/football teams!!! By the way ... for the record ... I am neither Conservative (big or little C), Liberal, or NDP ... I consider myself purely an Independent who votes for what he believes is in the best interest of this province (which over the last 3 elections was NDP, Conservative, and some party with a foolish name .... I've never voted Liberal federally, yet) |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2008 11:51:55 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere in this argument as long as, no matter who did what or what the policies are, the overall sentiment remains: Conservatives = good/bad Liberals = good/bad NDP = good/bad We tend to treat political parties like our sports teams that are burned into our psyches. Wait a sec now ... I was a die-hard Progressive Conservative when they existed, and even gave the Conservatives a chance when none would .... but when the PM of this country treats my province as insignificant ( I can win this election without Newfoundland) and reneges on clear promises he made to us ... well I reserve the right to switch. I'd never switch hockey/football teams!!! By the way ... for the record ... I am neither Conservative (big or little C), Liberal, or NDP ... I consider myself purely an Independent who votes for what he believes is in the best interest of this province (which over the last 3 elections was NDP, Conservative, and some party with a foolish name .... I've never voted Liberal federally, yet) When I say "we" and "overall" sentiment, I'm talking about the general population....not the members of this board. There are several here who could give all in Ottawa a sound tongue-lashing and back it up. I am talking about what I hear on TV....and from other people I talk to. A common-denomiator, if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Dec 5, 2008 12:00:28 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere in this argument as long as, no matter who did what or what the policies are, the overall sentiment remains: Conservatives = good/bad Liberals = good/bad NDP = good/bad If I may.... Conservatives = corrupt/liars/twits Liberals = corrupt/liars/twits NDP = corrupt/liars/twits K, I'm done. ;D |
|
But that is the beauty of this forum. Point, counter-point, get the facts straight , and then debate ... If anyone points out my errors, omissions, and yes even errors, I will promptly respond with my train of thought and an apology (if required).
