High Ho it's off to the polls we go.

[SirJosephPorter]

And since your views regarding gay sex and any and all its sick connotations are exactly identical to those of any and all of the most prominent members of the gay and lesbian community, you must be gay.

YJ, my views are also identical to the prominent members of the liberal community. Liberals by and large support gay rights, yet very few of them are gay. So what you are talking is nonsense. By your definition, John Chretien was gay, so was Paul Martin. Perhaps Harper is also gay, since he supports civil unions for gays.


Anyway, let us figure out what I am, by your logic. I have written posts supporting the following:

Feminism
Hinduism
Native Indians
Atheism
Homosexuality
Sikhs (I supported the decision by Supreme Court to permit some Sikh kids to wear kirpan in schools).
Pregnant women who want an abortion (I support a woman’s right to an abortion).

So by your definition, that makes me a Sikh homosexual Hindu Native Indian Atheistic pregnant woman. Talk of silly season.

 

[TenPenny]

So by your definition, that makes me a Sikh homosexual Hindu Native Indian Atheistic pregnant woman. Talk of silly season.

That certainly would explain a lot!

 

[TenPenny]

In other words, fixed election dates unless otherwise decided:

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That certainly would explain a lot!

Yes, it would, wouldn't it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In other words, fixed election dates unless otherwise decided:

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

That will work in a majority government fine TenPenny, but what about minority government?

 

[TenPenny]

That will work in a majority government fine TenPenny, but what about minority government?

Not sure I follow your question - this is exactly the legislation as enacted.

It changed nothing in practical terms, except limiting terms to no more than 4 years. It quite clearly states that the GG can dissolve Parliament at any time, and therefore does nothing to preclude elections called at the will of the PM.

 

[pegger]

Not sure I follow your question - this is exactly the legislation as enacted.

It changed nothing in practical terms, except limiting terms to no more than 4 years. It quite clearly states that the GG can dissolve Parliament at any time, and therefore does nothing to preclude elections called at the will of the PM.

It was a piece of useless do-nothing legislation that changed nothing (oh - sorry - it changed 5 year max terms to 4 year max terms)- but was spun by the Conservatives as some big triumph over the power of the PMO, and die hard partisans like to point to as something the Conservatives "enacted." It is a perfect example of the uselessness of this government - enact legislation that changes nothing, just to appease their base. Of course, their base - which tends not to think independantly, or actually look at the tripe they are served, lap it up.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not sure I follow your question - this is exactly the legislation as enacted.

It changed nothing in practical terms, except limiting terms to no more than 4 years. It quite clearly states that the GG can dissolve Parliament at any time, and therefore does nothing to preclude elections called at the will of the PM.

Oh, now I get it, you are talking of the legislation already enacted by the Conservatives (and not proposing some new legislation). Then pegger is right, it means nothing. It still retains the opposition’s right to topple the government any time they want (in a minority situation).

But in a democracy, the Parliament must have the right to topple the government any time it wishes. To take away that right will need a constitutional amendment and will smack of dictatorship. Any Democracy where opposition cannot throw the government out of office (assuming they have the votes of course) is only a limited democracy, not a true democracy.

If it is the legislation you are referring to, it kept the right of the opposition to topple the government any time it wants. And you are right, it changed nothing in that respect.


As I understand it, the legislation only says that the elections will be held at a fixed date provided the government is not toppled by the opposition in the meantime.

 

[Goober]

SJP

It is becoming apparent that a substantial number of the caucus did not want an election.
Then an hour later, the Anointed One decided – The last few lines in the 2nd article lays it out clearly – Cart before the horse-
If there were any doubts about the Liberal slide in Quebec, the Strategic Counsel poll on the front page of today’s Globe and Mail should dispel them. In fact, if the Quebec results are accurate, the Liberal descent is accelerating, presaging a Bloc Québécois sweep of the province — not exactly a propitious position from which to launch sceptical Canadians into their fourth election in five years.
What’s left unsaid today by Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo is that it’s Michael Ignatieff who’s been driving down the Liberal numbers in Quebec — according to the two most recent CROP polls published in La Presse. Indeed, in the more recent Leger poll published in Le Devoir, Mr. Ignatieff now finds himself at Stephen Harper levels of unpopularity in Quebec, which means that the Liberals will likely continue to sink in that province.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/ignatieffs-the-target/article1279021/

Michael Ignatieff's decision to call time on the Conservatives appears to have unified his party as never before -- it seems he now presides over an entire caucus of what Jean Chrétien famously called "nervous Nellies."
Maybe that's going too far. There must be a Liberal MP somewhere, sitting on a fat majority, who welcomes the chance to test the patience of voters less than a year after the last election.
But many members of the caucus have come down with a bad case of cold feet since Mr. Ignatieff announced his decision to bring down the government at the first opportunity last week. Speaking privately yesterday, a number of MPs and backroom Liberals professed extreme disquiet at Mr. Ignatieff's strategy.


One MP said the mood at the caucus meeting in Sudbury was "near unanimous" against a fall election. Yet, less than an hour after caucus had debated the issue, the Liberal leader emerged to hand down his decision. "We might as well have stayed in bed," said the MP.
Another Liberal said Mr. Ignatieff should have explained to Canadians why the Conservatives have to go, and why the Liberals deserve to replace them, before saying he intends to bring down the government.
"I'm waiting for Mr. Ignatieff to make that case. The cart is before the horse," he said. "We need to provide a compelling road-map."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/08/liberals-mutter-darkly-over-ignatieff-election-bravado.aspx

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Goober, National Post is a conservative newspaper. While as a news source it is considered highly reputable, respectable, it is hardly reliable when it comes to politics. Maybe Liberal MPs are unhappy with Ignatieff’s leadership, maybe they are not, I don’t know. But the Post article tells us nothing, it is probably written with a conservative bias.

I did not read the article, but does it predict a Conservative majority in the next election?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I thought so, Goober, certainly the guy is licking his chops in anticipation of a Conservative majority.

a backlash that could push the Conservatives into majority territory."

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Goober, get a load of this comment from one poster.

He will suffer a catastrophic defeat on the scale of the sinking of Kim Campbell in 1993.

This guy clearly thinks that liberals will end up with two seats after the next election (actually wasn’t he being generous in giving Liberals two seats? I would think he wouldn’t expect Liberals to win any seats). And you expect me to take the article seriously? Be sensible.

 

[Tonington]

Goober, National Post is a conservative newspaper. While as a news source it is considered highly reputable, respectable, it is hardly reliable when it comes to politics. Maybe Liberal MPs are unhappy with Ignatieff’s leadership, maybe they are not, I don’t know. But the Post article tells us nothing, it is probably written with a conservative bias.

I did not read the article, but does it predict a Conservative majority in the next election?

Holy blindfold batman.

SJP, you would not hesitate to latch onto anything giving glowing reviews of your partisan views. It's unbelievable that you can't see your hypocrisy regarding biases. I mean you might as well just post from the Liberal party website, and ignore all else.

If something in the Globe and Mail was published that showed the Liberals in an unfavourable light, you'd put the blinders on and probably claim the author is some far right Evangelical...

Remove the blindfold and see the light! Seriously!

 

[Goober]

I thought so, Goober, certainly the guy is licking his chops in anticipation of a Conservative majority.

a backlash that could push the Conservatives into majority territory."

SJP

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not want any of them with a majority before you understand – My point was that Iggy put the cart before the horse – explain himself to the country, what he supports and what he does not–– and lastly forget the high speed rail link as a vision – I am highly suspicious of persons with visions –

Canadians do not understand where the Liberals and Iggy stand and the 360 hr EI qualification idea of his is not justification for an election –

Perhaps you can expand on Iggy’s ideas and plans for the economy – He told Harper spend and get the money out the door – Harper did – Can’t run on that one now can he –

Now as we see Harper will come out with his own EI plan – Trumps Iggy again – Another disaster that he walked into – his nose must be starting to hurt I think.

If an election is called and Iggy does not perform well then where will that leave the Liberals – Anything under 110- 120 seats will be a failure laid at the Anointed Ones feet – and no matter what special scents he tries to cover the smell with the stink of defeat will be stronger –

I do follow politics and have no idea of what Iggy would do that is so different from Harper. Please advise me as I am utterly confused by Iggy.

Both state they will balance the budget without tax increases or spending cuts – Utter BS from both – on that point I think we are both in agreement? Yes – No ???

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I mean you might as well just post from the Liberal party website, and ignore all else.

Toningotn, I have never posted from Liberal Party website.

If something in the Globe and Mail was published that showed the Liberals in an unfavorable light, you'd put the blinders on and probably claim the author is some far right Evangelical

We are not talking of Globe and Mail here, do you deny that the Post has Conservative bias? Any political article in the Post must be regarded as favoring Conservative Party.

Any political analysis in the Post will paint the available information in as favorable manner as possible for Conservatives and in as a bleak manner as possible for the Liberals.

I wouldn’t trust the political opinion in the Post one bit.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not want any of them with a majority before you understand

I didn’t say otherwise, Goober. I said the writer of the blog was licking his chops in anticipation of the Conservative majority, not you.

As to what Iggy will do differently from Harper, I really haven’t been following the two parties that closely as of late. If there is an election, I assume both parties will put out their platform and then we will see if Iggy is going to do anything different from Harper.

I will say one thing though, as far as economy is concerned, I don’t’ think the two of them would handle it differently, the economic policy would be pretty much the same no mater who gets elected.

Unless an issue emerges which starkly differentiates the two parties, we are probably looking at another minority government.

Usually Ontario decides which party will form the government and Québec decides whether it will be a majority or a minority government. Seeing Harper’s low standing in Quebec, I don’t’ see how he can get a majority.

 

[pegger]

If there is an election, I assume both parties will put out their platform and then we will see if Iggy is going to do anything different from Harper.

That's a big assumption, given Harper saw no need to release one last time around...

 

[CrimsonClover]

That's a big assumption, given Harper saw no need to release one last time around...

The Liberals should have a platform anyway. It's smarter politics when you're in the centre. We can win on ideas, but if we go into this election promising nothing substantial, then we aren't going to motivate people to vote centre-left. We have to give them something to talk about.

The right is ready with the talking point that Iggy hasn't said exactly what will be different, more to the point what will will be better. They're already organized around the meme that Iggy has no plan to fulfill his promises. Liberals need to be ready with our own ideas and policies, and we need to have a message we can rally around.

Now, I don't know if Iggy is the man who can pull that off. I have a few problems with him myself, though he's undoubtedly better than Harper. But it needs to get done.

 

[Tonington]

Toningotn, I have never posted from Liberal Party website.

...I know. I said you might as well if you're just going to dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your neat little LPoC worldview as Conservative, far-right, evangelical, etc..

It's sad that you can't see that you are a mirror image of the labels you toss around.

I wouldn’t trust the political opinion in the Post one bit.

Or don't remove the blinders. It's your loss.

 

[VanIsle]

"That he only ventured into Canada on the promise of being the Boss Man". Have any of you considered that Ignatieff realizes he is never going to be the Boss Man and wants to head HOME so he calls an election, loses, quits and leaves.
And btw - Harper has already stated that he does not feel the NDP will actually back the Conservative Party.

They reported on last night's news that Ignatieff will not make a committment on how long it will be before he jumps ship and leaves the Liberal Party.