Not bad, Cliff, BUT we are between a rock and a hard place- the alternative to Campbell is the Banshee (Carole James)
Canada: A Banana Republic?
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
Not bad, Cliff, BUT we are between a rock and a hard place- the alternative to Campbell is the Banshee (Carole James)
exactly correct.
In this case, IMHO, the GG should not have allowed the suspension of Parliament......but when (and if) the Conservative government was defeated, she should allow the disolution of Parliament and a new election.
The inclusion of a Separatist party as "silent partner" in the coalition is a serious enough matter that it needs to be taken to the people, IMHO.
Now watch all those Coalition supporters that were crying about "the downfall of Democracy" at the hands of Harper start crying about another "wasted" $300 million.......which is exactly 1% of the $30 BILLION dollars the Coalition has promised to burn............
They know an election between the Conservatives and what people now realize would be a coalition.....would result in a strong Harper majority.
Suddenly they are not so interested in Democracy.
You can take that to the BAnk.
Looks like the Americans have already decided we are a Banana Republic.
Not that Canadians care too much about what Americans think.
Quote from a major US strategic think-tank.
Quote:
As Barack Obama’s transition team efficiently assembles an administration in the United States and Republicans begin preparing for their next chance at election in 2010, some Americans have been looking north and reconsidering what they thought they knew about Canada.
Peace, order and good government appear to have given way in Ottawa, and only peace remains a reliable assumption. What does this mean for U.S.-Canadian relations?
Had the opposition coalition plan succeeded in displacing the Harper government this week, Canada would have seen five governments in the past five years. For four of those years, Canada has had a minority government.
In one sense, a minority government does not alter the usual pattern of bilateral relations: Canadian governments continue to petition for favors and concessions in Washington under majority and minority governments alike. In another sense, minority governments are damaging: They become Ottawa’s standard excuse for avoiding concessions or action on issues that matter to Washington.
More troops for Afghanistan? Action to address the market manipulations of the Canadian Wheat Board? Participation in missile defense? Sorry, it would be too difficult given the minority position of the government.
This leaves Washington with two options: unilateralism, or benign neglect.
The United States has over the past four years relied frequently on unilateral approaches when it came to border security, or defence of the continent against missile attacks. It has also left Canada alone on economic issues, including some that matter, such as climate change. Engaging Canada is time-consuming and ultimately futile if Canadian governments cannot — or will not — act.
Scores of Canadian foreign-policy scholars have offered variations on the opinion that Canada must be able to do things, not just talk about things, in order to regain influence in international affairs. The problem is acute when dealing in Washington, a city of bluff players skeptical of words and attentive to deeds. The broad U.S. consensus places Canada among the ranks of U.S. allies such as the Netherlands and Denmark: small, with capacity to make limited but often helpful contributions on the margins of the world’s crises.
So, the incoming Obama administration may start with low expectations of Canada’s help as it prepares to address simultaneously the collapse of Detroit’s automakers, a global financial crisis, an energy market roller coaster, climate change fears and a metastasizing war with transnational terrorist groups.
This week, those expectations fell even lower as the opposition coalition proposed to replace a minority government with something even weaker and less able to act: a coalition minority government, with just 114 seats out of 308 in the House of Commons, a lame duck party leader as acting prime minister, and an alliance with separatists.
Stephen Harper may have mortally wounded today’s opposition coalition threat with the prorogation of Parliament to January 26. But in 2005, Harper himself tried to bring down the Martin minority government in May, was thwarted when Belinda Stronach switched parties, and tried again a few months later in October, finally succeeding. If today’s coalition fails to defeat Harper and the Conservatives, isn’t it likely that another attempt will follow, perhaps once the Liberals have a new and more popular leader?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office with a historic “first hundred days” of action based on electoral momentum. Barack Obama has moved quickly to put his administration together because today, a U.S. president’s best chances to get things done are in the first 18 months of a term — after that come midterm elections that serve as a referendum on the progress of the new president and can effectively kill momentum and clip the wings of presidential leadership thereafter. It is a limited window of opportunity, soon closed.
It is difficult to imagine a government in Ottawa that would be able to escape the current pall of political instability and weakness any time during the first two years of the Obama administration. This does not mean that Canadians or their interests will be maltreated, punished, or maliciously ignored by Washington. U.S. policymakers will pity Ottawa, indulge it when possible, and ignore it only when necessary.
However, the sad truth is that while Canadians have much to gain from an energetic partnership with the new Obama administration, it now looks as though the Canadian government will be too sick to come out and play.
Ordinary Canadians will have to content themselves with watching as political leaders in Ottawa and Washington proceed as though they weren’t even there.
National Post
Christopher Sands is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.
Trex
Not that Canadians care too much about what Americans think.
Quote from a major US strategic think-tank.
Quote:
As Barack Obama’s transition team efficiently assembles an administration in the United States and Republicans begin preparing for their next chance at election in 2010, some Americans have been looking north and reconsidering what they thought they knew about Canada.
Peace, order and good government appear to have given way in Ottawa, and only peace remains a reliable assumption. What does this mean for U.S.-Canadian relations?
Had the opposition coalition plan succeeded in displacing the Harper government this week, Canada would have seen five governments in the past five years. For four of those years, Canada has had a minority government.
In one sense, a minority government does not alter the usual pattern of bilateral relations: Canadian governments continue to petition for favors and concessions in Washington under majority and minority governments alike. In another sense, minority governments are damaging: They become Ottawa’s standard excuse for avoiding concessions or action on issues that matter to Washington.
More troops for Afghanistan? Action to address the market manipulations of the Canadian Wheat Board? Participation in missile defense? Sorry, it would be too difficult given the minority position of the government.
This leaves Washington with two options: unilateralism, or benign neglect.
The United States has over the past four years relied frequently on unilateral approaches when it came to border security, or defence of the continent against missile attacks. It has also left Canada alone on economic issues, including some that matter, such as climate change. Engaging Canada is time-consuming and ultimately futile if Canadian governments cannot — or will not — act.
Scores of Canadian foreign-policy scholars have offered variations on the opinion that Canada must be able to do things, not just talk about things, in order to regain influence in international affairs. The problem is acute when dealing in Washington, a city of bluff players skeptical of words and attentive to deeds. The broad U.S. consensus places Canada among the ranks of U.S. allies such as the Netherlands and Denmark: small, with capacity to make limited but often helpful contributions on the margins of the world’s crises.
So, the incoming Obama administration may start with low expectations of Canada’s help as it prepares to address simultaneously the collapse of Detroit’s automakers, a global financial crisis, an energy market roller coaster, climate change fears and a metastasizing war with transnational terrorist groups.
This week, those expectations fell even lower as the opposition coalition proposed to replace a minority government with something even weaker and less able to act: a coalition minority government, with just 114 seats out of 308 in the House of Commons, a lame duck party leader as acting prime minister, and an alliance with separatists.
Stephen Harper may have mortally wounded today’s opposition coalition threat with the prorogation of Parliament to January 26. But in 2005, Harper himself tried to bring down the Martin minority government in May, was thwarted when Belinda Stronach switched parties, and tried again a few months later in October, finally succeeding. If today’s coalition fails to defeat Harper and the Conservatives, isn’t it likely that another attempt will follow, perhaps once the Liberals have a new and more popular leader?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office with a historic “first hundred days” of action based on electoral momentum. Barack Obama has moved quickly to put his administration together because today, a U.S. president’s best chances to get things done are in the first 18 months of a term — after that come midterm elections that serve as a referendum on the progress of the new president and can effectively kill momentum and clip the wings of presidential leadership thereafter. It is a limited window of opportunity, soon closed.
It is difficult to imagine a government in Ottawa that would be able to escape the current pall of political instability and weakness any time during the first two years of the Obama administration. This does not mean that Canadians or their interests will be maltreated, punished, or maliciously ignored by Washington. U.S. policymakers will pity Ottawa, indulge it when possible, and ignore it only when necessary.
However, the sad truth is that while Canadians have much to gain from an energetic partnership with the new Obama administration, it now looks as though the Canadian government will be too sick to come out and play.
Ordinary Canadians will have to content themselves with watching as political leaders in Ottawa and Washington proceed as though they weren’t even there.
National Post
Christopher Sands is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.
Trex
"In this case, IMHO, the GG should not have allowed the suspension of Parliament......but when (and if) the Conservative government was defeated, she should allow the disolution of Parliament and a new election." We can still get to that point, Colpy but I think it's better to let the dust settle than to force the next move while every thing is in a state of turmoil and besides who wants political campaigning over Xmas?
Alberta has the cons forever thats true but we do have elections every five years and we can get rid of them if we want(they have not been caught in any major scandals yet). The rest of the country seems to want to switch governments every time you turn around.
That's because most Albertans only know 5 letters of the alphabet...
A is for Alberta
B is for Budweiser
C is for conservatives, gets confusing when you explain that it also stands for Calgary
D is for D'uh
E is for Edmonton
Some are able to include Fort Mac, but because they're counting the letters out on their fingers, they have to put the beer down to do it...
Here's to the conservatives...
A is for Alberta
B is for Budweiser
C is for conservatives, gets confusing when you explain that it also stands for Calgary
D is for D'uh
E is for Edmonton
Some are able to include Fort Mac, but because they're counting the letters out on their fingers, they have to put the beer down to do it...
Here's to the conservatives...
That's because most Albertans only know 5 letters of the alphabet...
A is for Alberta
B is for Budweiser
C is for conservatives, gets confusing when you explain that it also stands for Calgary
D is for D'uh
E is for Edmonton
Some are able to include Fort Mac, but because they're counting the letters out on their fingers, they have to put the beer down to do it...
Here's to the conservatives...
That's hilarious!
But I'd ask you to remember two things..........first, Albertans fund Canada. Full stop. They pay the buills.
Two. The jabs you just made against Albertans, who pay the bills, would have promoted screams of outrage if aimed at Quebecers........who we pay to stick around.
Why is it the left always wants to poke the eyes out of those that support them????
That's hilarious!
But I'd ask you to remember two things..........first, Albertans fund Canada. Full stop. They pay the biills.
Two. The jabs you just made against Albertans, who pay the bills, would have promoted screams of outrage if aimed at Quebecers........who we pay to stick around.
Why is it the left always wants to poke the eyes out of those that support them????
Feeling of inadequacy???
But I'd ask you to remember two things..........first, Albertans fund Canada. Full stop. They pay the biills.
Two. The jabs you just made against Albertans, who pay the bills, would have promoted screams of outrage if aimed at Quebecers........who we pay to stick around.
Why is it the left always wants to poke the eyes out of those that support them????
Feeling of inadequacy???
That's hilarious!
But I'd ask you to remember two things..........first, Albertans fund Canada. Full stop. They pay the biills.
Two. The jabs you just made against Albertans, who pay the bills, would have promoted screams of outrage if aimed at Quebecers........who we pay to stick around.
Why is it the left always wants to poke the eyes out of those that support them????
Feeling of inadequacy???
Bull!
Albertans are polluting the northern half of their province and parts of their neighbor's, as well as poisoning an important waterway with their irresponsible, runaway, exploiting of the damn tar sands. By the way, Alberta was a "have not" province for many years before the current oil "boom".
That's bull, even when we were broke and in debt we made cuts and lived within our means. and we haven't been a havenot since the fifties.
Really? Things were pretty desperate in the early 80's, but the national economy was bad too.
In the eighties we ran up 22.7 billion in debts and that's with the trust fund providing a 2 billion a year cushion- we were in trouble until Klein came along. It was a long and painful road- But we still paid equalization payments throughout that time.
I think the definition of "have not" depends a lot on who you are and how you were brought up- I tend to think of "have not" as how my parents described men out of work in the Hungry 30s and would come to the door willing to weed your garden for a bowl or soup or a sandwich. I think if you have 3 squares a day, decent clothes to wear and a warm dry shelter you don't quality to be a "have not". I doubt if Bill Gates thinks quite like that. :lol:
Oh yes. Fed the starving and housed the poor and most importantly, sent the Eastern Creeps and *burp* bumbs back to Ontario. :lol:
A banana republic no, a petro dictatorship yes.
The Harper government has consistently worked to circumvent and neutralize the elected body that's meant to be the real authority in this nation.
Harper starts a political crisis by threatening to cut vote subsidies then when the legally elected representatives of the people of Canada try to assert the majority position of the Parliment he runs to the Governor General, an unelected official, and shuts down the House again.
Harper was never elected PM, or King or anything else besides MP and leader of a party with slightly more members than other parties. All this talk about a clear mandate from the people and threats to Canada's sovereignty is pure nonsense.
Harper got caught with his pants down trying the same political games he's been engaging in since day one. We don't need a political machine in a fancy suit who's only real skill is thinking so convoluted no one knows where the hell he's coming from leading the country.
The U.S. got a real leader in the form of Obama, we got the same sad old story in the form of a frustrated would-be president who thinks he's too good for this country, otherwise he wouldn't continue to show such disrespect for the MPs elected by the people of Canada to represent them.
This all makes Canada look like a joke to the rest of the world, our supposed leader needs to run to mommy every time it looks like the opposition is going to take his plaything (Canada) away.
America has a leader with a message of hope, what do we have? More stupid games intended to divide and conquor our House of Parliment to feed the ego of one man and his merry band of sychophants.
Time for a change I'd say.
The Harper government has consistently worked to circumvent and neutralize the elected body that's meant to be the real authority in this nation.
Harper starts a political crisis by threatening to cut vote subsidies then when the legally elected representatives of the people of Canada try to assert the majority position of the Parliment he runs to the Governor General, an unelected official, and shuts down the House again.
Harper was never elected PM, or King or anything else besides MP and leader of a party with slightly more members than other parties. All this talk about a clear mandate from the people and threats to Canada's sovereignty is pure nonsense.
Harper got caught with his pants down trying the same political games he's been engaging in since day one. We don't need a political machine in a fancy suit who's only real skill is thinking so convoluted no one knows where the hell he's coming from leading the country.
The U.S. got a real leader in the form of Obama, we got the same sad old story in the form of a frustrated would-be president who thinks he's too good for this country, otherwise he wouldn't continue to show such disrespect for the MPs elected by the people of Canada to represent them.
This all makes Canada look like a joke to the rest of the world, our supposed leader needs to run to mommy every time it looks like the opposition is going to take his plaything (Canada) away.
America has a leader with a message of hope, what do we have? More stupid games intended to divide and conquor our House of Parliment to feed the ego of one man and his merry band of sychophants.
Time for a change I'd say.
I didn't say they were fun times. (and i'll have to admit- Klein was a bit of a Klown for saying that:lol
>> Canada: A Banana Republic?
No.
But we are certainly looking like an unstable bunch. At least we are still not like Italy and Israel, with a coalition government, or a change of government, all the time. So nothing gets done.
No.
But we are certainly looking like an unstable bunch. At least we are still not like Italy and Israel, with a coalition government, or a change of government, all the time. So nothing gets done.
Instability is a political strategy. Harper is creating a Banana republic by keeping parliament in a constant state of disarray. That way, Canada can be infiltrated by outside interests drooling over our resources (hint, hint!). Can you spell NAU? Our currency is being devalued to the point where we will be begging to hitch our horse to the Amero. We are being had and Harper is the demolition contractor.