And what would be the alternative? Responsible government? Politicians doing the job we hired them for instead of the rush for power?
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
And what would be the alternative? Responsible government? Politicians doing the job we hired them for instead of the rush for power?
You know either way the Neocons come out ahead in this.
If they remain, they say they have a mandate for every kooky idea they come up with. If they gain a majority, which isn't out of the question with the Iggy puffing up and doing nothing, they go into insanity mode. Really dumb things will become policy. Should they lose control of the House they get to rip the Liberals for years over the deficit, the War and the dumb ass antics the Liberals will get up to. No doubt someone will get caught with their fingers in the pie.
So really there is no losing this election for the Conservatives.
Their biggest problem is a new leader.
If they remain, they say they have a mandate for every kooky idea they come up with. If they gain a majority, which isn't out of the question with the Iggy puffing up and doing nothing, they go into insanity mode. Really dumb things will become policy. Should they lose control of the House they get to rip the Liberals for years over the deficit, the War and the dumb ass antics the Liberals will get up to. No doubt someone will get caught with their fingers in the pie.
So really there is no losing this election for the Conservatives.
Their biggest problem is a new leader.
I think Ignatieff is a very intelligent person. If he forces an election, he will have a plan. According to the polls if an election were held right now the Libs and the Cons would be tied. If by some chance the Libs win a minority government position, the Cons will almost certainly have leadership convention and Harpo will be history. Then it depends on who they pick as the new leader.
I would suggest to you that the possibility exists that the complete opposite is true.
Harper is now observing the fourth leader of the LPC while he remains the leader of the CPC.
I think he may yet see number five before he folds his tent.
Trex
I see that you are living in Germany.
As I have posted before I live in Canada but work in the EU.
I hold dual nationality and am slightly familiar with EU politics
I personally do not feel that European style minority governments hold much attraction for Canadians.
But thats just my opinion.
I feel that minority governments are fundamentally ineffective forms of governance in Canada.
The argument can be made that the official opposition party is actually more successful in filling its mandate and priorities than is the Government of the day under a minority Government.
In Canada it seems to me that minority governments can go two ways.
The opposition can bite their tongue and allow the ruling party to more or less fulfill their mandate, granted on a subdued and compromised basis.
Or we can go to the polls.
Over and over if required.
And that is where I believe we are now.
It is my opinion that the issue of multiple election campaigns will soon become an election issue in itself.
And thus I believe it will resolve itself in Canada.
Canadians will not in the future tolerate never ending annual elections.
Thus non confidence votes and elections will themselves soon become the biggest campaign issue.
And with luck that will soon lead to a majority Government of one stripe or another.
Then that Government can then succeed or fail upon its own laurels.
And the issue will become somewhat settled for the future.
Trex
It's very simple. If the government refuses to cooperate with the other three parties of the house, and continues to make every vote a confidence vote, then we will continue to have elections. The Government is right, it will slow down business of the Country, so far as infrastructure spending goes. But this is not the fault of the Opposition...
I thought a minority with the Conservatives as the Government was going to be a good thing. Martin had to make concessions with other parties, and in doing so the resulting legislation was much broader in it's support by Canadians. What we got was not what I had expected. I can see I was naive before. I actually believed some of the Conservative rhetoric after all those years of Liberal rule...
I thought a minority with the Conservatives as the Government was going to be a good thing. Martin had to make concessions with other parties, and in doing so the resulting legislation was much broader in it's support by Canadians. What we got was not what I had expected. I can see I was naive before. I actually believed some of the Conservative rhetoric after all those years of Liberal rule...
My thought is that there was a conscious decision made, by Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, to withhold legislation to enact the home renovation tax credit. I think the Government wanted to be able to use a bill for that tax credit as a ‘trump card’ if Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition threatened to vote for the defeat of the Government.
lol One does not precipitate the other. The majority of Canadians voters didn't vote. That likely means they didn't like anyone or else are disgusted with the entire election stuff or were too lazy/apathetic. If the majority don't vote, democracy is lost because democracy is rule by majority (or mob rule as I like to put it).
Yeah.
58% of registered electors voted during the 40th General Election for Canada—that constitutes a majority.
I am concerned, however, about the suggestion that mob rule is somehow better than the system that Canada has adopted. Our system enables us to have the weight of decision-making rest with the elected House of Commons (and where decision-making does not rest with that House, other decision-makers account to and are responsible to that House). The lesser balance of decision-making serves as an appropriate temper to democracy, so that decisions are made with a democratic voice, with the wise considerations of common sense and peace, order and good government preserved. ‘Mob rule’, on the other hand, is pure democracy and is therefore unstable and completely unachievable for the day-to-day operations of a government or legislature.
Good point. But the majority of the people that voted chose Con MPs which results in the same thing as electing the party leader, right?
I know our parliament isn't set up for cooperation and these days it's a shame it isn't.
All Canada is is a collections of special interest groups.
Yeah. That's sad.
Yup. Too much power in the hands of a few. It should change, but it won't. Canadians are too divided and myopic to act in concert and force change.
I am opposed to what? All I said was that Sir Pompass was wrong, basically. The "coalition" of Laymton and Iggy would not have been democratic.
My mistake. I was probably thinking BC politics (lowest voter turnout ever).
Pretty much. Personally I prefer democratic republic (Switzerland comes to mind. The people have the final word, not pols. Hubby discovered this while he was reading about Switzerland one time). I hate oligarchies and that is what we have in Canada, democratic or not.
As much as the professional drama queens of the Conservative Party of Canada would have wanted you to think so, that’s untrue. Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, supported by the New Democratic Party of Canada, would have represented the electoral voices of 44.5 % of electors, whereas the Conservative Government would have represented only 37.7 % of electors (statistics found at Elections Canada). Given the short existence of the House of Commons at the time of these events, it would have been completely appropriate (though surprising) for the Governor General of Canada to summon the Opposition to form a Government (should the Government have been defeated). Now that the Conservatives have governed for several more months, it would no longer be appropriate to summon a new Government without a general election. As much as it would have been controversial to Conservatives and Conservative supporters, such a Liberal–New Democratic team would have been entirely democratic—they were just as much elected as the Conservatives were (more so, even).
44.5% of voters is not a majority. Anything over 50% is a majority. At least where I went to school it was.
And I don't give a crap what the "drama queens" of the Cons think.
Then by your logic, the Conservatives should have been denied government at the start.
You mean and give a blank check for four years to a minority government? That is now hoe democracy works.
But, I do like the idea of cooperation rather than the constant smearing each other and butting heads we've had till now. I can't see any cooperation for the benefit of Canadians in the future, though.
Coalitions are fully as democratic as anything else, Anna. It is just that we are not used to coalitions. In many countries (e.g. Italy, Israel, Denmark etc.) because of proportional representation, 7 or 8 parties may win seats in an election. Then the horse trading begins, the question becomes which side can muster more than half the support.
In the end four or five parties may come together to from a government (they don’t have to say before the election which side they would support in a coalition). Usually there are two main parties, and coalition is built around a major party. However, sometimes there are two parties of equal strength in a coalition. If they cannot agree on a candidate, they make may somebody from a smaller party the Prime Minister.
When no party gets the majority, forming a government is like making a sausage, it is a messy business. If Canadians keep on electing minority governments, they must get used to the idea of coalitions, or be ready to elect a minority government every year.
Coalitions are fully as democratic as anything else, Anna. It is just that we are not used to coalitions. In many countries (e.g. Italy, Israel, Denmark etc.) because of proportional representation, 7 or 8 parties may win seats in an election. Then the horse trading begins, the question becomes which side can muster more than half the support.
In the end four or five parties may come together to from a government (they don’t have to say before the election which side they would support in a coalition). Usually there are two main parties, and coalition is built around a major party. However, sometimes there are two parties of equal strength in a coalition. If they cannot agree on a candidate, they make may somebody from a smaller party the Prime Minister.
When no party gets the majority, forming a government is like making a sausage, it is a messy business. If Canadians keep on electing minority governments, they must get used to the idea of coalitions, or be ready to elect a minority government every year.
In general. We were talking about a specific coalition, though. The one we would have had would not have been a democratic one as the Canadian public would have been bypassed.
Not true, I am more of a Libertarian than a conservative, have always been a free thinker. Yes it is true that Alberta has had a conservative government for several years, but have you actually SEEN any of the alternatives over the past few years? Decore was not bad, but had no chance of winning. NDP in this province is a joke. Wild Rose is a bit too far right for my tastes.
My point simply is that it is hard to truly judge any party if they do not have the opportunity to fully implement their policies. To compare the present CPC with former Reform is to simply not understand Reform. (did not vote for them, either). The only way to judge a party, the leader, and the policies of the party is to get the "full meal deal". Nothing saying I would like it all, either, but I would like the opportunity to get the full picture.
By the way, Nuggler, although I don;t know where you are from, it is obviously not from Alberta, but you seem to dislike us. May I ask why, given that for the last ten years or so, the economic engine of Canada has emanated from Alberta?
My point simply is that it is hard to truly judge any party if they do not have the opportunity to fully implement their policies. To compare the present CPC with former Reform is to simply not understand Reform. (did not vote for them, either). The only way to judge a party, the leader, and the policies of the party is to get the "full meal deal". Nothing saying I would like it all, either, but I would like the opportunity to get the full picture.
By the way, Nuggler, although I don;t know where you are from, it is obviously not from Alberta, but you seem to dislike us. May I ask why, given that for the last ten years or so, the economic engine of Canada has emanated from Alberta?
But isn’t that how politics works, aman? Right wing will slag Ignatieff if he says that sun rises in the East, and will mourn the demise of the Sun if Harper says that the Sun died last night, they will hold a wake to mourn the passing of the Sun and will praise the Messiah to high Heaven for noticing it.
That is how politics works. Whatever a conservative says about politics, one must remember that he comes with an agenda.
If a conservative must praise a Liberal, it is a past Liberal, e.g. they may praise Paul martin now, he is safely off the scene. And some do praise Martin; I suppose that gives them a verisimilitude of nonpartisanship.
But politics is a dirty business; one must leave one’s objectivity at the door and praise one’s candidate (Harper in this case) to high Heaven, no matter what.