|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 12:24:46 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere . . . If you'd stopped there you would have ended all discussion . . . and been right ;D Just heard an interview with who said "It doesn't matter what the Conservatives do or say, or what kind of budget they propose -- they have lost the faith of hte house and we will vote them out at first opportunity, though if there is anything good in the budget they bring we'll use it."
Yup . . . we'll never get anywhere . . . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2008 12:25:52 GMT -5
Conservatives = corrupt/liars/twits Liberals = corrupt/liars/twits NDP = corrupt/liars/twits You are giving twits a bad name. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2008 13:26:12 GMT -5
Just heard an interview with who said "It doesn't matter what the Conservatives do or say, or what kind of budget they propose -- they have lost the faith of hte house and we will vote them out at first opportunity, though if there is anything good in the budget they bring we'll use it."
Yup . . . we'll never get anywhere . . . Unfortunately, that will be Bob Rae's holiday message. How refreshing it would be to hear, "The Governor-General has decided to give Mr. Harper's government a stay. Hopefully, they'll table a budget that we can all work with...making this exercise worthwhile." |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2008 14:25:40 GMT -5
We'll never get anywhere . . . If you'd stopped there you would have ended all discussion . . . and been right ;D Just heard an interview with who said "It doesn't matter what the Conservatives do or say, or what kind of budget they propose -- they have lost the faith of hte house and we will vote them out at first opportunity, though if there is anything good in the budget they bring we'll use it."
Yup . . . we'll never get anywhere . . . A loss of confidence is a loss of trust .... how can this parliament trust the PM now after he basically tried using the current economic crisis to push through 3 motions that were foolhardy at best? If you back-pedal now and let him have a second chance he very well may do something underhanded again .... I for one do not want to see him get that chance. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 5, 2008 17:20:55 GMT -5
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. To quote a certain British comedy troupe that I am known to love: In this case it's not some moistened bint hurling a scimitar of course, but it is the back room dealings of three non-aligned parties desperate for whatever power they can get. The union of the Liberal, NDP and BQ parties is a gross violation not only of the mandate the Canadian people as a whole set down in an election not three months ago (a mandate which only the Conservatives - admittedly after facing the knives of the coalition and therefore under extreme duress - have attempt to govern under) but of many of those people who voted for the Liberal and NDP parties who would rather see the Conservatives in power than to see this alliance. The Confidence of the House may be important to matters of procedure within the house, but it is nothing besides the confidence of the Canadian people. And the Canadian people have little confidence in the coalition. If you do not believe me, why don't we ask the Canadian people themselves? www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/parliament-poll.htmlThe people of Canada have spoken, and if this is not a clear condemnation of the triple alliance, than nothing will be. Harper may have lost the confidence of the House of Commons, but it appears the House of Commons has lost the confidence of the people of Canada. In a democracy it is the Vox Populi that must be heard, not the noise now emitted by the clowns who are supposed to be representing us on the Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 5, 2008 17:28:40 GMT -5
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. To quote a certain British comedy troupe that I am known to love: In this case it's not some moistened bint hurling a scimitar of course, but it is the back room dealings of three non-aligned parties desperate for whatever power they can get. The union of the Liberal, NDP and BQ parties is a gross violation not only of the mandate the Canadian people as a whole set down in an election not three months ago (a mandate which only the Conservatives - admittedly after facing the knives of the coalition and therefore under extreme duress - have attempt to govern under) but of many of those people who voted for the Liberal and NDP parties who would rather see the Conservatives in power than to see this alliance. The Confidence of the House may be important to matters of procedure within the house, but it is nothing besides the confidence of the Canadian people. And the Canadian people have little confidence in the coalition. If you do not believe me, why don't we ask the Canadian people themselves? www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/parliament-poll.htmlThe people of Canada have spoken, and if this is not a clear condemnation of the triple alliance, than nothing will be. Harper may have lost the confidence of the House of Commons, but it appears the House of Commons has lost the confidence of the people of Canada. In a democracy it is the Vox Populi that must be heard, not the noise now emitted by the clowns who are supposed to be representing us on the Hill. But wait, while the Conservatives have increased their share to 44% in that poll, it's still less than the combined Liberal 24%, NDP 14% and Bloq 9% (leaving alone the Green's 8%).. with people now KNOWING about the coalition. It's not a condemnation of the triple alliance at all, unless you feel capable of translating that poll into parliamentary seats. People seem more confident that the Conservatives would be better able to manage the "financial crunch" but there's nothing of the rest of the governing process. Again, I'm not even for the coalition, but that poll's hardly condemning. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2008 20:49:51 GMT -5
But wait, while the Conservatives have increased their share to 44% in that poll, it's still less than the combined Liberal 24%, NDP 14% and Bloq 9% (leaving alone the Green's 8%).. with people now KNOWING about the coalition. It's not a condemnation of the triple alliance at all, unless you feel capable of translating that poll into parliamentary seats. People seem more confident that the Conservatives would be better able to manage the "financial crunch" but there's nothing of the rest of the governing process. Again, I'm not even for the coalition, but that poll's hardly condemning. There wont be a massive shift because the hard liners of those who believe in those parties will still vote for those parties. What will happen will be a shift of the majority of the other party's soft support to the Conservatives. As for the 44%, that would give him about 175 seats. A very, very clear majority. The Conservatives won 169 of 295 seats with 43% in 1988. As for the percentage figures, one can look at them from another direction and they look absolutely miserable for the opposition. 58% don't want the Conservatives. Fine but..... 76% don't want the Liberals to govern. 86% don't want the NDP to govern. 91% don't want the Bloq to govern. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 5, 2008 21:59:40 GMT -5
There wont be a massive shift because the hard liners of those who believe in those parties will still vote for those parties. What will happen will be a shift of the majority of the other party's soft support to the Conservatives. As for the 44%, that would give him about 175 seats. A very, very clear majority. The Conservatives won 169 of 295 seats with 43% in 1988. The Liberals won 177 of 301 seats with just 41% of the vote in 1993 -- a very clear majority -- but just 147 of 282 seats with 44% of the vote in 1980. If you want to go back even farther, Trudeau only won 114 of 282 seats with 40% of the vote in 1979 (compared to 136 with just 36% of the vote for Clark). Polling data doesn't translate into seat totals. I'll give you that the Conservatives would probably have a plurality of seats. That's about all though. As for the percentage figures, one can look at them from another direction and they look absolutely miserable for the opposition. 58% don't want the Conservatives. Fine but..... 76% don't want the Liberals to govern. 86% don't want the NDP to govern. 91% don't want the Bloq to govern. I'm not sure you can make any of the last three assertions when the presumably informed public know that those three are willing and capable of forming a coalition. If I vote for an NDP representative in my riding, I'm doing so knowing full well that should he/she be elected they may (likely will?) attempt to form a coalition government. Anything else would be me fooling myself. The results support a swing toward the Conservatives, yes. However it's not condemning because it very likely includes people who don't, didn't or won't vote. The poll respondents reflects census data, but again, it doesn't reflect voter census data, and the comparison of 44% (what they consider an increase of 6.4%) is made against election data, not even a similar poll at election time! Polls aren't worth anything unless they're used properly. There's a few things above that make me less inclined to hop on board with a massive shift, even though I probably agree with that assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 6, 2008 4:09:47 GMT -5
There wont be a massive shift because the hard liners of those who believe in those parties will still vote for those parties. What will happen will be a shift of the majority of the other party's soft support to the Conservatives. As for the 44%, that would give him about 175 seats. A very, very clear majority. The Conservatives won 169 of 295 seats with 43% in 1988. The Liberals won 177 of 301 seats with just 41% of the vote in 1993 -- a very clear majority -- but just 147 of 282 seats with 44% of the vote in 1980. If you want to go back even farther, Trudeau only won 114 of 282 seats with 40% of the vote in 1979 (compared to 136 with just 36% of the vote for Clark). Polling data doesn't translate into seat totals. I'll give you that the Conservatives would probably have a plurality of seats. That's about all though. Other polls are showing an even GREATER percentage lead. See the EKOS poll with 46%. As for the percentage figures, one can look at them from another direction and they look absolutely miserable for the opposition. 58% don't want the Conservatives. Fine but..... 76% don't want the Liberals to govern. 86% don't want the NDP to govern. 91% don't want the Bloq to govern. I'm not sure you can make any of the last three assertions when the presumably informed public know that those three are willing and capable of forming a coalition. If I vote for an NDP representative in my riding, I'm doing so knowing full well that should he/she be elected they may (likely will?) attempt to form a coalition government. Anything else would be me fooling myself. The results support a swing toward the Conservatives, yes. However it's not condemning because it very likely includes people who don't, didn't or won't vote. The poll respondents reflects census data, but again, it doesn't reflect voter census data, and the comparison of 44% (what they consider an increase of 6.4%) is made against election data, not even a similar poll at election time! Polls aren't worth anything unless they're used properly. There's a few things above that make me less inclined to hop on board with a massive shift, even though I probably agree with that assertion. Dammit your slippery....but you ain't getting away! LOL! My counter argument was to your adding up all the percentages and using it as a basis to justify the coalition. Let's face it, as the EKOS poll showed (in the other thread), MOST Canadians favour an election and they would give the Conservatives a VERY CLEAR seat majority. On top of this, other then Quebec, it will be one of those ugly, meat packing slaughter houses for the three stooges in the rest of Canada. On top of the already ugly scenario is that the vast majority want Dion to get lost. Sooo.... If you cling to the argument that by the Parliamentry system the three stooges should run the country, then the country will deliver a CLEAR unquestinable seat majority to Harper RIGHT NOW. Can't have it both ways. Caution: This link is NOT for those weak of coalition heart. www.ekos.com/admin/articles/5dec2008.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 6, 2008 8:09:48 GMT -5
Dammit your slippery....but you ain't getting away! LOL! Playing Devil's Advocate is fun sometimes.  My counter argument was to your adding up all the percentages and using it as a basis to justify the coalition. Let's face it, as the EKOS poll showed (in the other thread), MOST Canadians favour an election and they would give the Conservatives a VERY CLEAR seat majority. On top of this, other then Quebec, it will be one of those ugly, meat packing slaughter houses for the three stooges in the rest of Canada. On top of the already ugly scenario is that the vast majority want Dion to get lost. Sooo.... If you cling to the argument that by the Parliamentry system the three stooges should run the country, then the country will deliver a CLEAR unquestinable seat majority to Harper RIGHT NOW. Can't have it both ways. My assertion isn't that the coalition should govern, or that Canadians want them to. I just don't think the polling data contained in that original link is clearly 100% contrary to that. That's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2008 17:12:35 GMT -5
Sooo.... If you cling to the argument that by the Parliamentry system the three stooges should run the country, then the country will deliver a CLEAR unquestinable seat majority to Harper RIGHT NOW. Can't have it both ways. I don't understand this line of thinking .... Under our democracy system, not only to they have the right to govern, they have the DUTY to govern. The fact that Harper leads any poll has nothing to do with it. We have had PMs before with popularity ratings in the sh*tter before and they didnt have to call an election. Right now, they are allowed to govern until the coalition breaks up, they lose the confidence of the house, dissolution of parliament, or the the fixed election date occurs. It is quite probable, maybe even a certainty, that Harper (well not Harper, precedent tells us that a defeated PM typically resigns) that the conservative may very well win a majority next time .... but that has no bearing on whether the coalition should or can govern. Btw, someone show me a poll of the opinion of Canadians regarding: 1) Harper's popularity (45% blame him for this mess, 40% blame the coalition) 2) Who will the electorate vote for if Dion is not the Leader of the Opposition (most of these opinion poll are using Dion as L of O) 3) If an election was called without Harper leading the Cons (Harper still may be forced to resign remember) - IMO this is the Cons best way at majority. 4) Ignatieff's popularity The polling data doesn't show any of this ... the situation can change in the next 2 months of no parliament.... and admittedly it can change either way. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 6, 2008 17:50:24 GMT -5
But wait, while the Conservatives have increased their share to 44% in that poll, it's still less than the combined Liberal 24%, NDP 14% and Bloq 9% (leaving alone the Green's 8%).. with people now KNOWING about the coalition. No single party has possessed a majority of the popular vote since sometime in the 1930's I believe. It's one of the inherent problems with the first past the post system, but as we're not talking about reforming the Constitution and Parliament it's of little relevance here. However, a jump of 8% in the polls at the expense of the three parties in question (in addition to the 1 or 2% the Greens gained) is significant. This means former supporters of the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals have decided on a new course - one which doesn't involve either of those three. This in turn is likely a result of some act the three undertook which has upset some of their supporters. Now, far be it for me to suggest what act this might be, but unless the three parties have all been involved in some scandal I am unaware of... It's not a condemnation of the triple alliance at all, unless you feel capable of translating that poll into parliamentary seats. Most majority governments hover around the 40% mark of the popular vote. For a party with 44% of the popular vote to not garner a majority would be a large aberration. People seem more confident that the Conservatives would be better able to manage the "financial crunch" but there's nothing of the rest of the governing process. Again, I'm not even for the coalition, but that poll's hardly condemning. And your point is? I mean, does it really matter the reason why? At the very least the message sent to Parliament is "we do not want the alliance to govern us, we want the Conservatives to do so". Whatever the reason. In that case coalition is still acting contrary to the will of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 6, 2008 18:21:41 GMT -5
I don't understand this line of thinking .... Under our democracy system, not only to they have the right to govern, they have the DUTY to govern. The fact that Harper leads any poll has nothing to do with it. We have had PMs before with popularity ratings in the sh*tter before and they didnt have to call an election. It has everything to do with it Skilly. Ignore the PM's of the past who have had low approval ratings - aside from the fact that attempting to govern without the approval of the people usually presages a collapse of the party (hello Mr. Grimes), simply the fact that it has been done before does not make it right. THIS Parliament (the one that is sitting right now, the only one we can do anything about) is set to undertake an action which will create both great upheaval in the house and great dissatisfaction in the country. This Parliament, which according to you is supposed to represent the people of Canada, will be acting contrary to their wishes. This Parliament, which swore an oath to the Queen to serve the principles of democracy, will violate that oath by allowing themselves - not the people - to choose how this country is governed. Right now, they are allowed to govern until the coalition breaks up, they lose the confidence of the house, dissolution of parliament, or the the fixed election date occurs. It is quite probable, maybe even a certainty, that Harper (well not Harper, precedent tells us that a defeated PM typically resigns) that the conservative may very well win a majority next time .... but that has no bearing on whether the coalition should or can govern. You use two words there. Can and should. Can they? Certainly. It is permitted under the Constitution. They can do it. Should they? Not if they mean to hold true to the oath they take as members of Parliament. Not if we live in a representative democracy, where the wishes of the people are truly reflected by their representative in Parliament. Not if they have a single ethical bone in their body. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 6, 2008 18:32:26 GMT -5
Should there be an election the only way Harper gains a majority is if he shuts his mouth. Every time there ha beens an election call Harper has said something to kill his own chances.
He has not yet learned how to be a politician -- his idealism gets in the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2008 19:34:18 GMT -5
However, a jump of 8% in the polls at the expense of the three parties in question (in addition to the 1 or 2% the Greens gained) is significant. This means former supporters of the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals have decided on a new course - one which doesn't involve either of those three. This in turn is likely a result of some act the three undertook which has upset some of their supporters. Now, far be it for me to suggest what act this might be, but unless the three parties have all been involved in some scandal I am unaware of... C'mon TNG .... that is a complete stretch. It is very possible, even likely, that Dion's screw up in "tape-gate" has more to do with the exodus of support than the whole coalition. Yes the polls say that people are against the coalition.... but are they against the coalition or are they against Dion leading the coalition. Show me a poll after Dion is removed (sooner rather than later hopefully) or a poll that expressly states would you vote for the coalition/Liberal if Dion is removed? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2008 19:52:15 GMT -5
It has everything to do with it Skilly. Ignore the PM's of the past who have had low approval ratings - aside from the fact that attempting to govern without the approval of the people usually presages a collapse of the party (hello Mr. Grimes), simply the fact that it has been done before does not make it right. THIS Parliament (the one that is sitting right now, the only one we can do anything about) is set to undertake an action which will create both great upheaval in the house and great dissatisfaction in the country. This Parliament, which according to you is supposed to represent the people of Canada, will be acting contrary to their wishes. This Parliament, which swore an oath to the Queen to serve the principles of democracy, will violate that oath by allowing themselves - not the people - to choose how this country is governed. You and I obviously have different views on how our democracy is suppose to work (both in theory and practice). Any class in democracy (my grade 10 class did) will teach you that when the House of Commons loses confidence in the PM, they have a DUTY to remove him from power ... as McHabber said "its their job". Leaving a PM in power without the Confidence of the House is very very dangerous..... the only precedent I could find (Lester Pearson) only remained in power after losing a confidence vote because the Opposition later showed him confidence (I am not sure of the particulars to tell the truth ... ) The parliament represents the people of Canada but they are not acting contrary to their wishes. This isnt a majority government, and for some reason your arguements come across that this government should be given that privilege ... to be viewed as a majority. Minority governments to do have a RIGHT to govern, since in the representative Westminister system, plurality does not mean governing ... confidence does. And the coalition is doing exactly that ... serving their oath by protecting our system of democracy. Removing a PM that does not have the confidence in the majority of the House. The House decides, not the people ... it is sad, but true. If the people truly decided we would need a referendum on every issue before the House. We put them in there to decide on our behalf ... (they could be out of touch on issues granted) .. but their vote IS and ALWAYS will be a vote of the people in our system of democracy. You'll have to explain the ethics to me ... but the democratic principles are quite clear. They are staying true to their oaths, ... if you can't see it, then we will have to agree to disagree and move on. Politicians by nature are not ethical, so I don't really know why this all of a sudden comes into play ... Liberals and Cons have been unethical in the past and the present. You said lets concentrate on this parliament ... was it ethical of Harper to try and financially destroy the opposition parties in the guise of an economic update? Yes, he backtracked. It means nothing, because fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me ... which is why he has to be removed. There is no trust, no confidence, which is the foundation of our democratic system. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2008 20:01:28 GMT -5
And your point is? I mean, does it really matter the reason why? At the very least the message sent to Parliament is "we do not want the alliance to govern us, we want the Conservatives to do so". Whatever the reason. In that case coalition is still acting contrary to the will of the people. And your point is? Polls are neither accurate (hence the +/- associated with them) nor reliable, since they are snapshots in time and very often only taken after something "exciting" to the pollsters. And pollsters can be hired by other parties, who either slant the question or pick the respondents..... ...since when have we started making decisions on policy and democracy in Canada based on polls. Why not let the polls decide our next election if they are so good.... save us all a fortune.  Is that your idea of getting your vote to count/democracy? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 6, 2008 20:07:02 GMT -5
C'mon TNG .... that is a complete stretch. It is very possible, even likely, that Dion's screw up in "tape-gate" has more to do with the exodus of support than the whole coalition. Yes the polls say that people are against the coalition.... but are they against the coalition or are they against Dion leading the coalition. Show me a poll after Dion is removed (sooner rather than later hopefully) or a poll that expressly states would you vote for the coalition/Liberal if Dion is removed? Let me ask one simple question. So what? You can spin this way and that, but the fact remains the people do not wish the coalition to led the country. The root cause - be it the presence of the Bloc in the coalition, the fact that Dion is perhaps the worst federal leader in history or because the coalition is secretly led by Reptiles from the planet Nibriu - the fact of the matter is that the Members of Parliament who are currently supporting this coalition are acting contrary to the will of the people. If - and it's a big if because earlier this week people were lauding M. Dion as a genius for orchestrating this farce - Dion is removed from the leadership of the coalition then we can debate the merits of a coalition led by Layton or Duceppe or Iggy or Rae. But doing beforehand is just speculation and is meaningless at this time. The coalition chose Dion as it's leader and in the end, if that's the reason for their downfall, then it's still the coalition's poor choices that have brought about their own demise. Remember - I have no problem with a coalition that represents the will of the people. I have a problem with a coalition that acts contrary to the opinions of those that give it power. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 6, 2008 20:41:37 GMT -5
And your point is? Polls are neither accurate (hence the +/- associated with them) nor reliable, since they are snapshots in time and very often only taken after something "exciting" to the pollsters. And pollsters can be hired by other parties, who either slant the question or pick the respondents..... ...since when have we started making decisions on policy and democracy in Canada based on polls. Why not let the polls decide our next election if they are so good.... save us all a fortune. Is that your idea of getting your vote to count/democracy? We do allow polls to decide an election. That's what an election is. That's why it's called "going to the polls" and not - I don't know, let's say "throwing a dead fish under the rug" or "purple monkey dishwasher" (other giveaway terms include "poll tax" and "polling station"). It's more elaborate, true, but it's a poll none the less You're right, however. A poll is not entirely accurate. It has its flaws. But so does just about every means we have of understanding what the people of the country want. So does an election in and of itself for what it's worth. And the more complex the issue the less accurate the result. But we're not talking about complex questions here - like should we be in Afghanistan or should we close the Cod Fishery. We are not asking should we bail out this industry, or should we let it all go to rot. We are asking a question that is at the very core of democracy. Who do you want to lead the country? In fact the question asked, verbatim, is "If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?" Not much of a chance for misinterpreting that, is there? You're spinning and stretching. What if the coalition ditches Dion? How can you can trust polls to tell what the people are thinking? The ultimate solution is an election. The question is, if the coalition has nothing to fear, why try and force their way into power? Why not force an election instead? Because they know they will lose. They know the people of Canada do not support them. And they fear the wrath of the people - as well they should |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2008 21:06:46 GMT -5
And your point is? Polls are neither accurate (hence the +/- associated with them) nor reliable, since they are snapshots in time and very often only taken after something "exciting" to the pollsters. And pollsters can be hired by other parties, who either slant the question or pick the respondents..... ...since when have we started making decisions on policy and democracy in Canada based on polls. Why not let the polls decide our next election if they are so good.... save us all a fortune. Is that your idea of getting your vote to count/democracy? We do allow polls to decide an election. That's what an election is. That's why it's called "going to the polls" and not - I don't know, let's say "throwing a dead fish under the rug" or "purple monkey dishwasher" (other giveaway terms include "poll tax" and "polling station"). It's more elaborate, true, but it's a poll none the less You're right, however. A poll is not entirely accurate. It has its flaws. But so does just about every means we have of understanding what the people of the country want. So does an election in and of itself for what it's worth. And the more complex the issue the less accurate the result. But we're not talking about complex questions here - like should we be in Afghanistan or should we close the Cod Fishery. We are not asking should we bail out this industry, or should we let it all go to rot. We are asking a question that is at the very core of democracy. Who do you want to lead the country? In fact the question asked, verbatim, is "If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?" Not much of a chance for misinterpreting that, is there? You're spinning and stretching. What if the coalition ditches Dion? How can you can trust polls to tell what the people are thinking? The ultimate solution is an election. The question is, if the coalition has nothing to fear, why try and force their way into power? Why not force an election instead? Because they know they will lose. They know the people of Canada do not support them. And they fear the wrath of the people - as well they should Going to the polls ... and an IPSO Reid poll are two different things (and you know it). You still fail to recognize the fundamental element of our democracy ... the people elect parliament, parliament chooses the government. The people have spoken (7 weeks ago) , parliament has not .... thanks to proroguement, which is totally undemocratic in this instance. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 6, 2008 22:02:47 GMT -5
Going to the polls ... and an IPSO Reid poll are two different things (and you know it). Indeed, one is larger and more complex to ensure that the will of the people is represented in the most accurate manner possible. However they also possess many of the same flaws (only take a 'snapshot' of the opinion of the nation of the time etc.) and are, at the core, fundamentally indistinguishable. You still fail to recognize the fundamental element of our democracy ... the people elect parliament, parliament chooses the government. The people have spoken (7 weeks ago) , parliament has not .... thanks to proroguement, which is totally undemocratic in this instance. Fine, since you refuse to admit that this whole "perfect representative democracy" nonsense is only theory and has no real bearing on what happens in our government, I'm going to assume everything is ideal and still show that the members of this coalition are vacating their obligations to the people. Let's assume this is a perfect representative democracy where the people elect a representative to stand in for them in Parliament (we both know it doesn't happen, but you're clinging to it because it's a strong refuge for those who wish this coalition was anything other than an outright attack on the democratic principles of this country). If that is the case then the representatives in the house (the Members of Parliament) have an obligation to represent the opinions of the people of their riding. That means that if the people do not want it, they should not support it. In short, if the world worked as you suggest it does, then Parliament has an obligation to select the government willed by the people (a.k.a. not the coalition). Now this is not the case, but I've already repeated many times how this is also a real world violation of voters rights, so I won't bother repeating myself. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 6, 2008 23:47:38 GMT -5
There's a reason why we don't have a referendum on every issue (other than the expense), and why it is perfectly acceptable and normal for the government and MPs to make decisions that go against what the polls are currently saying: MPs are supposed to be better able to make these decisions than you and I - Joe Average (or Joe the Plumber) isn't qualified to decide on the details of economic policy, or foreign policy, etc. Furthermore, public opinion is often a yo-yo. We elect these people to make these decisions for us using whatever knowledge, experience, and abilities they have, and we hold periodic elections in case they screw up really badly and because dictatorships usually aren't in the best interests of the country.
In other words, how Canadians feel about a coalition right now, in the midst of a propaganda war, is pretty much irrelevant. While it may not be politically feasible for politicians to completely ignore the polls, it would in some sense be the ideal scenario. If the majority of MPs think bringing down Harper and having a coalition government is best for the country, then that is what they should do, and, abstractly, what they were elected to do.
If most Canadians want a stimulus package, and Harper isn't giving them one, is he "violating" their rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 7, 2008 23:16:57 GMT -5
Fine, since you refuse to admit that this whole "perfect representative democracy" nonsense is only theory and has no real bearing on what happens in our government, I'm going to assume everything is ideal and still show that the members of this coalition are vacating their obligations to the people. I believe you are the one who are advocating "ideal" conditions ... being from Newfoundland, you and I both know that MPs do not vote the way the "people" want them in Parliament. Why? Because we, the people, elect Parliament...... Parliament chooses the government and makes all decisions. Thats the way it works, I am not saying it is right or ethical ( You are ) .. I am saying that's how our government works. Plain and simple. The voice of the people is heard in elections, the voice of parliament is heard in between elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 7, 2008 23:21:28 GMT -5
If most Canadians want a stimulus package, and Harper isn't giving them one, is he "violating" their rights? A better question would be if Canadians think that equal pay for women is right (more than 50% of the population is female, so their is a good chance that Canadians want equal pay for women) and Harper tried taking it from them ... is he violating their human rights and not listening to the people. But hey it is Harper, somehow the same rules don't apply to him .... I mean using sovereignists to topple a government is "different" now ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 8, 2008 10:08:36 GMT -5
Actually, Skilly, the issue isn't equal pay for women. It would be political suicide [and more base, stupid] to cancel a program that is about equality.
But it isn't "equal pay for equal work" [ie: I do the same job as you so I shouldn't be paid more just because I have testicles]; it is "equal pay for work of equal value", which means that someone has to arbitrarily decide what is the value of every job. And that. my friend, is a whole 'nuther set of problems [and inflationary (and might I add inflammatory) issues].
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 8, 2008 13:10:39 GMT -5
Furthermore, public opinion is often a yo-yo. Uh-huh. This is a fact. Well, while I think the average Canadian voter has eveloved to the point where they give a hoot, I feel there remains only a small group of voters who actually understand what the issues are in an election. It's not irrevelant to me and certainly not to Harper. By getting a temporary stay of execution, he's hoping the coalition might feel differently about a united front. But, if they don't he's going to the poles with a huge lead. Right now, no one on either side is ignoring what the average Canadian feels about the coalition or recent poles that suggest a Tory majority if we're talking about a winter election. Agreed. But, do it in a non-confidence vote, not by deferring votes to people who didn't earn them in the first place. I understand an election would be political suicide for whichever party is responsible for calling one. But, the campaign pitch by the NDP and Liberals was to make people believe that they'd provide THE solution to the current economic crisis. Yet, not too many have bought into it. This was all about removing Harper from office without going to a non-confidence vote. Yet, if you listen to the coalition, they've got the package ... a $30 billion package that will put 'a Volkswagen in every driveway' and 'a chicken in every pot.' They said a Tory budget that puts us in a deficit situation was unacceptable, but where is this multi-billion-dollar package coming from? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 8, 2008 14:41:55 GMT -5
Agreed. But, do it in a non-confidence vote, not by deferring votes to people who didn't earn them in the first place. I understand an election would be political suicide for whichever party is responsible for calling one. But, the campaign pitch by the NDP and Liberals was to make people believe that they'd provide THE solution to the current economic crisis. Yet, not too many have bought into it. This was all about removing Harper from office without going to a non-confidence vote. Not true, Dis. The government can't be removed without a confidence vote. When that vote happens, it'll be up to the GG to decide whether to call an election or ask the opposition to govern. Unless you mean that they were hoping Harper would just resign and the Conservatives would have a new leader, and the country a new PM, which I think would be an acceptable result. Remember that every party, including the Conservatives, swore never to run a deficit during the election. We, the voters, are responsible for that, because we apparently can't handle it when politicians actually tell us the truth, that a deficit may be necessary. Now, I don't think the opposition is saying a deficit is unacceptable, they're just saying it's a result of reckless spending and tax cuts by Conservatives prior to the election, not of the global economic crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 8, 2008 15:06:13 GMT -5
Agreed. But, do it in a non-confidence vote, not by deferring votes to people who didn't earn them in the first place. I understand an election would be political suicide for whichever party is responsible for calling one. But, the campaign pitch by the NDP and Liberals was to make people believe that they'd provide THE solution to the current economic crisis. Yet, not too many have bought into it. This was all about removing Harper from office without going to a non-confidence vote. Not true, Dis. The government can't be removed without a confidence vote. When that vote happens, it'll be up to the GG to decide whether to call an election or ask the opposition to govern. Unless you mean that they were hoping Harper would just resign and the Conservatives would have a new leader, and the country a new PM, which I think would be an acceptable result. I always understood the process, MaCH. No worries, mate. I had a much longer post all pounded out, but I guess I'd better not cut any more corners in getting to my point. Remember that every party, including the Conservatives, swore never to run a deficit during the election. We, the voters, are responsible for that, because we apparently can't handle it when politicians actually tell us the truth, that a deficit may be necessary. [/quote] So it's now alright for the coalition to run up a deficit after basing their decision to form a coalition to challenge a deficit budget? (part of what I originally deleted)I used to feel the voters were treated pretty much like sheep by every political party out there. For the most part, we still are. Yet, as much as I feel our voting public has progressed in deciding where they should put their vote, that same group is now fed up with the whole process. If the electorate turnout was the lowest it's been in years for the last election, I have a feeling that the next one might produce some big numbers. I don't know if I'll like the result, which could be a possible Tory majority if the mood stays the same. But this is what you get for taking people for granted. On a personal note, the Liberals lost my vote with ADSCAM. Jack Layton has lost my trust and I may never forgive him for that. That said, I may look at the NDP again after he's gone. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 8, 2008 15:41:30 GMT -5
Remember that every party, including the Conservatives, swore never to run a deficit during the election. We, the voters, are responsible for that, because we apparently can't handle it when politicians actually tell us the truth, that a deficit may be necessary. So it's now alright for the coalition to run up a deficit after basing their decision to form a coalition to challenge a deficit budget? But forming a coalition had nothing to do with the deficit, it was because of Harper's partisan attacks and the lack of a stimulus package. And for the coalition parties to break their election promise not to run a deficit is no worse than for the Conservatives to do it. It's worth pointing out, in defense of all 4 parties, that the economic situation is much worse now than it was during the election. It was ridiculous for anyone to absolutely rule out running a deficit, IMO, and nobody should have believed any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 8, 2008 16:31:46 GMT -5
So it's now alright for the coalition to run up a deficit after basing their decision to form a coalition to challenge a deficit budget? But forming a coalition had nothing to do with the deficit, it was because of Harper's partisan attacks and the lack of a stimulus package. And for the coalition parties to break their election promise not to run a deficit is no worse than for the Conservatives to do it. It's worth pointing out, in defense of all 4 parties, that the economic situation is much worse now than it was during the election. It was ridiculous for anyone to absolutely rule out running a deficit, IMO, and nobody should have believed any of them. Good post. Cheers. |
|
Is that your idea of getting your vote to count/democracy?
