Canadian Opposition Tries to Force Early Election

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
:lol: It's funny how both sides see the situation at hand. I Found a couple of toons regarding Laytons moves. You can see the suttle difference between the conservative leaning cartoonists and the Liberal ones:


Liberal:





Conservative

 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63

LAUGHING AT LAYTON

By Simon Tudiver
November 11, 2005


As Canada’s political leaders continue to spar over the details of a looming federal election, the media seem to be getting almost as fed up as Canadians, offering up pointed criticism and tongue-in-cheek reports. The politicians keep debating the same questions: how soon will an election come? Will there be time to finish the Christmas turkey? Who will be the one responsible for pushing Canadians to the polls and what kind of rope will they use to string him up with after they’ve tarred and feathered his nicely pressed suit? The Globe leads with a straight story on the latest offensive from the Conservatives who are promising to block Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s economic update planned for next week. Stephen Harper is decrying the “mini-budget” as an early campaign move; he’s incensed the Liberals would try to buy Canadian votes with news of a big surplus.

But the issue that has grabbed commentators is that of election timing. Earlier this week, Jack Layton proposed a scheme that would withdraw opposition support from the government without actually putting it to a non-confidence vote. The idea was to force the Liberals into triggering the election themselves, preferably after the holiday season. The CBC’s Terry Milewski filed an amusing report which noted that Layton’s proposal would end up pushing the election into the middle of the Chinese New Year, sparking ire in the Chinese community and, Milewski speculates, possibly at home (Layton’s wife is of Chinese descent). The National’s “At Issue” panel picked apart Layton’s move, concluding the NDP leader may have played right into the hands of the Liberals by merely adding another voice to the chorus debating procedural rhetoric. The Globe’s Brian Laghi suggests that “Canadians have become so cynical of politicians’ motives that they no longer see a big difference in the ethical behaviour of the opposition and the government.” Could that mean that Canadians might actually care about substantive issues rather than petty politics? MediaScout hopes the politicians are reading the critical undertones in today’s media coverage. Thankfully, they still have time to develop a real platform before the ballots are cast.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Polls can't be trusted, Rev. If we were to attempt to guess who would win based on polls, it would be similar to flipping a coin.

Example, if one were to guess by polls on this thread, you would think the NDP would win. Polls can be misleading.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
What I see as a danger Rev, is Harper teaming with the Bloc for a majority government. If the numbers are as your polls suggest, it will happen. It is the only way that Harper will become PM.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Interesting point, Juan. French speaking Quebeckers generally don't care which party (liberal/conservative) holds power, they will vote with the party most sympathetic to separation. This was demonstrated when they voted en masse for Mulroney. A CPC/Bloc Union would be just what Harper needs. Plus, his argument on decentalizing more power to the provinces (which is good ... going towards a US approach) is popular both out west and in Quebec. Not to mention that seperation is popular to both Albertans and Quebeckers.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Nascar_James said:
Interesting point, Juan. French speaking Quebeckers generally don't care which party (liberal/conservative) holds power, they will vote with the party most sympathetic to separation. This was demonstrated when they voted en masse for Mulroney. A CPC/Bloc Union would be just what Harper needs. Plus, his argument on decentalizing more power to the provinces (which is good ... going towards a US approach) is popular both out west and in Quebec. Not to mention that seperation is popular to both Albertans and Quebeckers.

Correct, as far as it goes.

The problem with a Conservative/Bloc alliance is two fold:

First of all, it would be permanent political suicide for any party to be seen to be allied with the Bloc. No English Canadian worth his Molson's would ever vote Conservative again. You might get your five year term, but you'd never again be elected. The Bloc wants to destroy Canada, remember. And I actually like Duceppe.

Secondly, the Bloc is a socialist party, in some ways more left than the NDP. Duceppe began his adult life as a convinced Marxist-Leninist. He has certainly modified his position, and is trusted by Harper, who says of him that he always does exactly what he says he will do (unlike Layton). However, the ideological gap is just too wide to bridge.

The simple fact of the matter is that any Conservative minority government will be exceptionally short-lived. The only REAL hope to avoid one-party rule in this unfortunate country is a Conservative majority, which is a long shot to say the least.

Harper has already been well demonized. Just read the comments here in these forums. And it is, unfortunately, all complete BS. Harper is a moderate, a back-room policy wonk. He has taken the Conservatives right down the middle of the road. (in fact, too moderate for me, but I'm hardly mainstream)

He is not good at politicing. He has been trying to play the game, but he ain't good at it. (Whoever told him to smile more should be kicked.....he looks exactly like the shark in Finding Nemo)(who does turn out to be a good guy, but the image......)

Anyway, all I got to say is VOTE CPC, its the best of a soory lot.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
[quote"James"]Polls can't be trusted, Rev. If we were to attempt to guess who would win based on polls, it would be similar to flipping a coin.

Example, if one were to guess by polls on this thread, you would think the NDP would win. Polls can be misleading.[/quote]

That's what the people who don't like poll results always say, James. That you would compare an internet poll to scientific poll carried out by a professional pollster is hilarious though.

These are seat projections though, not polls. These ones are public, but every party runs their own. They do that because it allows them to know where they stand. Now if you were a leader looking at these results, what would you do?




Juan said:
What I see as a danger Rev, is Harper teaming with the Bloc for a majority government. If the numbers are as your polls suggest, it will happen. It is the only way that Harper will become PM.

Such an alliance is unlikely. First of all the polls are headed the other way, so the Liberals will get more seats and the CPC will likely get fewer. More to the point though...the CPC and the BQ don't agree on anything but wanting to bring Martin down. Since neither party has exhibited an ability to compromise, any such alliance would fail almost immediately.

Nascar Nero said:
Interesting point, Juan. French speaking Quebeckers generally don't care which party (liberal/conservative) holds power, they will vote with the party most sympathetic to separation. This was demonstrated when they voted en masse for Mulroney. A CPC/Bloc Union would be just what Harper needs. Plus, his argument on decentalizing more power to the provinces (which is good ... going towards a US approach) is popular both out west and in Quebec. Not to mention that seperation is popular to both Albertans and Quebeckers.

The BQ don't trust Harper with decentralised power though, and the people of Quebec, separatist or not, do not tolerate narrow-minded bigots from Alberta very well. Especially right now since the Harperites have been cranking up the anti-Quebec rhetoric over the last couple of weeks.

Colpy said:
Harper has already been well demonized. Just read the comments here in these forums. And it is, unfortunately, all complete BS. Harper is a moderate, a back-room policy wonk. He has taken the Conservatives right down the middle of the road.

...and here I thought you were about say something based on facts.

The demonization of Harper comes from things that he has done and said in the past. He is a policy wonk, but he's also a right-wing wanker. He has said that he wants private medicine. He has said that we should adopt the US dollar. He has said that we should have gone into Iraq. He has said that we should join BMD. He has said that abortion should be banned. He has said that he would deny same sex couples their constitutional right to marry. He's for deep integration, including border security and our military.

We don't have to demonize Harper, all we have to do is quote him.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Rev said "The demonization of Harper comes from things that he has done and said in the past. He is a policy wonk, but he's also a right-wing wanker. He has said that he wants private medicine. He has said that we should adopt the US dollar. He has said that we should have gone into Iraq. He has said that we should join BMD. He has said that abortion should be banned. He has said that he would deny same sex couples their constitutional right to marry. He's for deep integration, including border security and our military."

Let's see.....on allowing private medicine in Canada, he agrees with not only the majority of the people, but with the Supreme Court.

Never heard tell of him saying we should switch to the US dollar. I'll believe it when I see it.

We should have joined our British, Australian, and US allies in Iraq. At the time, only a clear majority in Quebec thought we shouldn't.

We are in BMD. Norad is tracking missiles for it. We have agreed to share all info, which is the ONLY thing the US wanted besides moral support. This has been one of the most successful deceptions of that arsehole Martin. He managed to alienate the Americans for absolutely no reason.

He has said Abortion should be BANNED?! I don't believe it. Show me some proof. This is demonization.

The Supreme Court was wrong. No surprize, seeing as how the Justices are appointed. When the Charter was written, the delegates considered including sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights, and they rejected the notion. Therefore SSM is NOT protected. Constitutions should be interpreted in light of what the writers intended. Anything else is not interpretation of law, it is making law, well beyond the role of the Court.

I don't believe the Conservatives will revisit this, despite all the rhetoric last spring. I might be wrong on this one however. The election campaign will tell.

I'm all for border integration with the USA.

Our military should be equipped in the same manner as the USA, but I've never heard any Conservative speak of complete integration. And I'm a party member.

I stand by what I said. Harper is an intelligent, moderate man demonized by the Liberals. He is at least as qualified to run the place as Martin.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Let's see.....on allowing private medicine in Canada, he agrees with not only the majority of the people, but with the Supreme Court.

No, actually...he is now saying that he agrees with the majority of people, but we have no reason to believe him. The SC ruling wasn't about whether healthcare should be privatised, it was about the government not doing what was required and it was about the Quebec system, not the overall Canadian system.





Never heard tell of him saying we should switch to the US dollar. I'll believe it when I see it.

Check out what the NCC was pushing when Harper was leading it.

We should have joined our British, Australian, and US allies in Iraq. At the time, only a clear majority in Quebec thought we shouldn't.

Only Alberta was ever really for going into Iraq.

We are in BMD. Norad is tracking missiles for it. We have agreed to share all info, which is the ONLY thing the US wanted besides moral support. This has been one of the most successful deceptions of that arsehole Martin. He managed to alienate the Americans for absolutely no reason.

I don't agree with allowing NORAD to track missiles, but the US wanted us officially in BMD because it would have given their war-mongering some credibility. There is no way that Canada should tarnish our reputation on that.

He has said Abortion should be BANNED?! I don't believe it. Show me some proof. This is demonization.

One of those days this spring when the Conservatives were refusing to show up to do the jobs we pay them for, he spoke at an anti-choice rally right on Parliament Hill. The CPC offical non-stance on abortion is a carefully worded piece of crap meant to mislead people by saying the party won't challenge the status quo while encouraging a private members bill should they ever think they have the numbers.

The Supreme Court was wrong.

Yeah, because you're one of the great legal minds of the century and they don't understand the constitution at all.

I'm all for border integration with the USA.

Then move there. I don't want their friggin' storm troopers taking one step over the border, and sure as hell don't want Washington telling us who can come and go from this country.

Our military should be equipped in the same manner as the USA, but I've never heard any Conservative speak of complete integration. And I'm a party member.

Every expert who looked at the CPC platform said that it integrated our military with the USA's at the expense of being able to carry out multi-lateral peacekeeping missions.

I stand by what I said.

It's your funeral.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Canadian Opposition T

Harper sets Nov. 28 as date to topple government

Opposition leader Stephen Harper says Nov. 28 is likely the day the axe will fall on the Liberal minority government, even as a new poll showed an early election might not go in the opposition's favour.

The Conservative leader says that's probably the date the House of Commons will vote on a non-confidence motion.

Prick. Whats the problem waiting until March or April? He aint gonna win.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Canadian Opposition T

no1important said:
Harper sets Nov. 28 as date to topple government

Opposition leader Stephen Harper says Nov. 28 is likely the day the axe will fall on the Liberal minority government, even as a new poll showed an early election might not go in the opposition's favour.

The Conservative leader says that's probably the date the House of Commons will vote on a non-confidence motion.

Prick. Whats the problem waiting until March or April? He aint gonna win.

Harper has been consistently unwilling to support these lying bastards. He has been trying to rid the nation of them for 6 months.

What's wrong with waiting until March or April? If you discovered your accountant has been robbing you, would you wait for a couple of months before firing him?
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Canadian Opposition T

Harper has been constantly unwilling to make Parliement run. Election now or in April we are still going to have a Lib minority.

Plus Martin may of been aware of some of what was going on, but it was Chretien so why blame Martin?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Canadian Opposition T

no1important said:
Harper has been constantly unwilling to make Parliement run. Election now or in April we are still going to have a Lib minority.

Plus Martin may of been aware of some of what was going on, but it was Chretien so why blame Martin?

Martin knew EXACTLY what was going on.

He was the second most powerful man in cabinet, and in Quebec. I understand his claim that Chretien kept him "out of the loop", but how is that possible when Martin's people used to claim they controled EVERY riding association in the country?

Besides, Martin has proven himself to be a liar on his own account.

What ever happened to Parliamentary reform?

Along with a dozen other things.

The Liberals have got to go, for the good of the nation. To leave them in will simply encourage them.

Liberal scandals (remember Martin was in cabinet, so he is partially responsible)

The APEC thing. To my mind a very serious scandal, as it showed the PM not only suppressing free speech, but using the RCMP as his own personal Gestapo.

And the sequel.....the Apec inquiry.

The shutting down of the Somalia inquiry.

HRDC.

The golf course/hotel thing.

The persecution of BDC President Bouduoin (sp). Once again the PM uses the RCMP as his personal enforcers.

Gomery. The worst scandal in Canadian history.

These people are scum. They need to be thrown into the political wilderness to contemplate their sins for at least 5 years.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Nascar_James said:
Interesting point, Juan. French speaking Quebeckers generally don't care which party (liberal/conservative) holds power, they will vote with the party most sympathetic to separation. This was demonstrated when they voted en masse for Mulroney. A CPC/Bloc Union would be just what Harper needs. Plus, his argument on decentalizing more power to the provinces (which is good ... going towards a US approach) is popular both out west and in Quebec. Not to mention that seperation is popular to both Albertans and Quebeckers.

Nonsense...if that were the case Mulroney would have received more than two seats ( Canada wide) when he was turfed out. Hmmm... Conservatives (CPC) aligning with a party that wants to seperate...not exactly a unifying prospect. What Canada needs is someone to step up that can unify the country...not govern its seperation. Someone with vision and direction.

To be quite honest I have not seen this from any of the leaders to this point. Canada needs a statesman. Like him or not we have not had one since Trudeau and Pearson before him. I did not always like the way Trudeau handled things...but the one thing I will give him credit for ...is he had a vision of what Canada should be. Pearson was far better on the world stage.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Martin knew EXACTLY what was going on.

He was the second most powerful man in cabinet, and in Quebec. I understand his claim that Chretien kept him "out of the loop", but how is that possible when Martin's people used to claim they controled EVERY riding association in the country?

You really want to have it both ways, don't you? Anybody who follows politics in this country understands that the Liberals have been almost two separate parties for a decade now. Martin's people controlled every riding association in the country after Chretien announced his retirement. Don't try to pretend that Sponsorship just happened in the last couple of years though...it's an old scandal.

Besides, Martin has proven himself to be a liar on his own account.

What ever happened to Parliamentary reform?

What happened to Alliance/Conservative support of proportional representation?

The Liberals have got to go, for the good of the nation. To leave them in will simply encourage them.

And them winning another minority won't encourage them?

Liberal scandals (remember Martin was in cabinet, so he is partially responsible)

The APEC thing. To my mind a very serious scandal, as it showed the PM not only suppressing free speech, but using the RCMP as his own personal Gestapo.

Chretien's scandal. By the way, every Reform/Alliance/Conservative I talked to about this until very recently blamed all those left-wing protestors who got pepper-sprayed, so you guys haven't exactly got the moral highground on this one.

And the sequel.....the Apec inquiry.

Again, Chretien's scandal and you guys didn't really care too much because you hate the protest movement anyway.

The shutting down of the Somalia inquiry.

Chretien's scandal.


Chretien's.

The golf course/hotel thing.

Very much Chretien's.

The persecution of BDC President Bouduoin (sp). Once again the PM uses the RCMP as his personal enforcers.

Chretien's

Gomery. The worst scandal in Canadian history.

Actually, it pales in comparison to Sir John A's railroad scandal, so claiming that it was the worst in Canadian history is simply not true. Gomery exonerated Martin though. He is considered to be a neutral party by the CPC and BQ, or at least he was until he came up with a verdict that the CPC didn't like.

Now let's be honest, Colpy. I don't like Martin. I think his government follows right-wing, corporatist policies that are harmful to Canada in the long run. I think his stance refusing to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP is shameful. I think his support of Iraq and BMD through the back door is dishonest. I think his treatment of poor people is hideous. Basically, I think the man is just another carpet-bagger in the pockets of the corporate hacks that are trying to dismantle democracy.

You are trying to make two scandals out of APEC though, and ignoring that the Conservatives, under all of their many names, would have not only invited the same people and induced the same protests, but would have also used brutality to quash those protests.

You forgot to mention Quebec City, btw...a police riot where cops responded to having teddy bears hurled at them by firing water cannon and rubber bullets. Some young people there were arrested in the apartments where they lived even though they hadn't been at the protests. Passers-by who had nothing to do with the protest were arrested, some of them were beaten. A lot of innocent protestors were clubbed for exercising their right to free speech. The Conservative criticism of the Liberals was that they weren't brutal enough.

You have no right, absolutely no fecking right to pretend that you can criticise the Liberals for their actions against protestors.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The opposition is set to bring down the minority Liberal government on November 28 and force a January election, Conservative leader Stephen Harper said on Wednesday.
Harper said he would prefer to move earlier but would stick to a timetable agreed on Sunday with the two smaller opposition parties.

Under that arrangement, the opposition will team up in Parliament to ask Prime Minister Paul Martin to dissolve Parliament in January and set a February election, and then proceed to topple the government if Martin refuses.

"The agreement is that if the prime minister has not clearly agreed, solemnly committed, to call the election in January then a non-confidence (motion) would go ahead on the Thursday (November 24)," Harper told reporters.

He said the vote in Parliament on such a motion would be expected to be delayed to Monday, November 28. The election campaign would normally begin the next day, with a date expected to be set on January 9, 16, or some subsequent Monday.
Martin still has one parliamentary tactic he could use to delay an election, however. He could "prorogue" Parliament, interrupting its session indefinitely and blocking any confidence motions as well as any legislation.

That strategy was seen as a risky long shot, though Martin refused to explicitly rule it out.
"I'm not going to respond to every rumor. I made it very clear that I am here to govern," he said, shortly before leaving for South Korea for an Asia-Pacific summit.
"I am going to continue to govern until such time as in fact a non-confidence motion is passed by the opposition and the government falls," Martin said.
Harper said that if Martin did interrupt the parliamentary session, he would be seen to be running from the voters.
A senior Liberal source said such a strategy would be very unlikely because it would prevent Parliament from approving supplementary government spending. If the government does not fall, a vote on that spending is scheduled for December 8.
Martin, who lost his majority in Parliament in the June 2004 election, would prefer to delay the next election until April 2006 and has rejected the February election request.
Parliament will still debate the request on Thursday and vote on it on November 21, with the opposition trying to paint Martin as rigidly ignoring the will of the House of Commons.

"The Conservative Party has compromised. The Bloc Quebecois has compromised. We have compromised," the New Democratic Party's Ed Broadbent told the House of Commons.
"Is it not an example of unmitigated Liberal arrogance to say, 'either it is my way, or no way'?"


Tony Valeri, responsible for running Liberal business in the House, responded: "We either have the confidence of this chamber or we do not. If we do not, put forward a motion."
One reason the Liberals want an April election is the hope that public anger over a kickbacks scandal that involved some Liberal Party officials will have worn off. The scandal was the subject of a judicial inquiry that released its fact-finding report on November 1.
An SES poll in Wednesday's Sun newspapers put the Liberal lead in public opinion at six percentage points, enough to form a minority government again, but just half the lead the Liberals had on the eve of the scandal inquiry report.
SES put the Liberals at 34 percent, the Conservatives at 28 percent and the left-leaning New Democrats at 20 percent.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Yup, we're going to have an election. I like the NDP's suggested date of February 13...that's about perfect and it's when Martin should make the election no matter when his government falls.

You Conservative types have to get a hold of your MPs and Stephen Harper, preferably by their throats, and tell them that this one had better be about issues though. You'd also better be willing to do some actual work when the election is over. People are damned tired of your scandal mongering, name calling, empty rhetoric, and sundry other crap.