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

[Polygong]

We do know, the Reform Party platform has been known for years and was tried under Mike Harris in Ontario. It was a disaster and I'm far from keen to live through it again.

 

[Nuggler]

looking at the opposition, it seems to me it is well past time we got out and gave the Conservatives a majority government.......and see how they do with power.

Careful whatcha wish for, Colpy. Ain't no way to reign em in for 4 years, and they could do a lot of damage in that time. Might even appoint Geo. W to the senate:lol::lol:

Personally, I hope for a Con minority. (same as now) They don't do a helluva lot, but it don't hurt too much either.

Iggy's an unknown. Not impressed.

LIbs.............mehhhhhhhhhhh. Shawinigate...................aww shyte.
Cons.................Mulroo...........................................aww shyte.

Hoonose?

NDP: a non starter.................

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wow, AlbertaBlue supporting Conservatives, a big surprise there. You claim that people should give Conservatives a majority, but surely you are not serious when you say that if people don’t like them, they can vote Conservatives out?

If people don’t like four years of Conservatives, which party do you suggest they vote for? Surely what you want is perpetual Conservative government, like you have in your beloved Alberta? Isn’t that the ultimate in paradise?

 

[Nuggler]

Wow, AlbertaBlue supporting Conservatives, a big surprise there. You claim that people should give Conservatives a majority, but surely you are not serious when you say that if people don’t like them, they can vote Conservatives out?

If people don’t like four years of Conservatives, which party do you suggest they vote for? Surely what you want is perpetual Conservative government, like you have in your beloved Alberta? Isn’t that the ultimate in paradise?

Who TF are you talking to??

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Who TF are you talking to??

I was replying to post No. 18 by AlbertaBlue, Nuggler.

 

[Nuggler]

I was replying to post No. 18 by AlbertaBlue, Nuggler.

jeez, ok. thanks. I thought someone might think I was from there.


:lol:

 

[earth_as_one]

Ignatieff lacks political acumen. He announces that he isn't going to support Harper, yet has no valid reason. Harper should have no problem portraying Ignatieff as irresponsibly wasting taxpayer's money on an election during a financial crisis and needless distracting the government.

Ignatieff shouldn't be PM. He might be bright, but he lacks common sense.

What he should have done is held a private meeting with onluy his most trusted advisors and came up with a plan which would lead to an election (if that what he wants) yet make it look like Harper was responsible and innocent Ignatieff was forced against his will to bring down the government despite his most sincere desire and best efforts to make the minority government work.

What an idiot.

 

[Nuggler]

Ignatieff lacks political acumen. He announces that he isn't going to support Harper, yet has no valid reason. Harper should have no problem portraying Ignatieff as irresponsibly wasting taxpayer's money on an election during a financial crisis and needless distracting the government.

Ignatieff shouldn't be PM. He might be bright, but he lacks common sense.

What he should have done is held a private meeting with onluy his most trusted advisors and came up with a plan which would lead to an election (if that what he wants) yet make it look like Harper was responsible and innocent Ignatieff was forced against his will to bring down the government despite his most sincere desire and best efforts to make the minority government work.

What an idiot.

Alas, you are correct. Old time Libs (the ones with a secure, iron clad pension plus perks) are probably laughing their asses off at Iggy. Libs have always been faithful at eating their own.

But the stupid, arrogant, dipshyte, can't seem to see it coming.

Ah, well........t'was always thus.:-(

Kiss your healthcare goodbye folks. You too will have the OPPORTUNITY to BUY it.

 

[VanIsle]

You know, Iggy had a chance with me.....

I thought, OMG! the guy shows promise! A History prof, supposedly with some sense of the flow of events and the ability to see clearly what is important to preserve....a man who spent his academic career in our two brother nations, Great Britain and the USA, a man who might understand our role in history, and the importance of solidarity in defense of the political and constitutional principles
of the English speaking peoples........someone of intelligence, someone in which the natural Canadian urge to wishy-washiness might have been modified by his stay in the USA...as evidenced by his support of US foreign policy.

All I wanted was a commitment to sanity in foreign policy, some indication that the man had something resembling a principle, and a hint of rationality on the gun control issue.... and I would have submitted, my relationship with Harper was, after all, on the rocks....he flirts too much, and makes me promises he never keeps.....

ALAS! What I discover is that Iggy has adopted the worst of American attitudes in his defense of torture, that he only ventured into Canada on the promise of being instantly elected Boss Man, that he has all the principles of a sewer rat (shown in the Great Coalition Fiasco) that he ascends to new levels of arrogance (even for a Liberal!), that suddenly he is a pacifist (!), and that he spent his 30 some years abroad "searching for Canada....which seems to me to indicate that he is an idiot as well......

So its pull up my panties, straighten my skirts, and its home to Harper i go!!!!!

Thank God this flirtation didn't go too far!!!!

"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.

 

[aman12]

S the right wingers slag Ignatieff for being a coward and supporting the government then slag him for not supporting Harper. They complain that Harper was forced to apply the stimulus and the cry that it is not the time for an elction so that the stimulus can be given time to work. SJP is right, they just want perpetual Con rule like in Alberta.

 

[Colpy]

S the right wingers slag Ignatieff for being a coward and supporting the government then slag him for not supporting Harper. They complain that Harper was forced to apply the stimulus and the cry that it is not the time for an elction so that the stimulus can be given time to work. SJP is right, they just want perpetual Con rule like in Alberta.

Nope.

I slag Harper for not standing up to the scum Liberals under Dion when they threatened the bloody seditious coalition. You remember, the one that included the people sworn to destroy Canada....the one that Ignatieff supported until he got a whiff of the people's outrage.

Ignatieff is just behaving like a typical Liberal.......throwing his so-called "principles" out the window as fast as he can figure out which way the wind is blowing.

I'm not happy with either of them, but Damn it, when stood side-by-side, Harper wins.

BTW, you label yourself "Liberal". I'm a CPC member. We're gonna have fun!!!!

 

[AnnaG]

And spare me all that debate about the GG getting to decide.
She is way too clever and far too loyal to the country to allow unelected coalitions to run Canada against the wishes of the majority.

There is nothing undemocratic about coalitions, Trex; it is just that in Canada we are not used to them (we usually have a majority government). In Europe the coalitions are quite common.

If libs and NDP form a coalition, two scenarios are possible. They could to go GG and convince her that they have the majority support and Conservatives don’t. In that case, GG can ask the coalition to form a government. The first act of the Parliament would be a confidence motion to test if the coalition has the majority support.

Or if Cons are the biggest party, she could invite Cons to form a government, which can be defeated in the Parliament in a no confidence motion. Then GG asks the coalition to form a government.

There is nothing undemocratic about coalitions. In most European countries they have proportional representation, so no party ever gets a majority; the government is always a coalition government.

If we continue to get minority governments, Canadians will have to learn to live with coalitions.

Balogna. The "coalition" that was in the wind at the end of last year had nothing to do with the will of the people and ALL to do with political grandstanding by Iggy and Laymton. They would NOT have been elected by the people (one of the factors in a democracy), but would have booted Harpy out and taken over. A non-violent & legal coup d'etat, as it were. And having the Crown interfering with it does not make it democratic at all either, but rather dictatorial. And I rather doubt that the "coalition" would be any better for Canadians than Harpy, Iggy, or Laymton individually.
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.

 

[Polygong]

Ignatieff lacks political acumen. He announces that he isn't going to support Harper, yet has no valid reason.

Actually, he does. Harper refues to cooperate with the duly and fairly elected oppisiton in forming legislation.

A more cooperative minority government would spell the end of election talk. See: Pearson, Lester B.

 

[missile]

As we seem to be having one every year,why not just make it a national holiday...Voting Day?

 

[Niflmir]

My opinion: get rid of confidence votes.

 

[pegger]

I agree with Colpy, we need need a Conservative majority. Not because I support everything they do, but because I simply don't believe a single thing the Fibs have to say. I still remember Jean 'So a few million were stolen' Chretien, the sponsorship scandal, the HRDC boondoggle, and countless others, including the grand master of deception, Trudeau who continually told us one thing and said another.

I remember Harper promising an "open and transparent government," never to tax income trusts, promising fixed election dates, promising to work with the opposition, reducing the power of the PMO, never running a deficit under his watch....

Having said that, I totally disagreed with the Spending Stimulus, but understood fully why it was done. Now to hear Iggy complain about a deficit he demanded Harper have to have a spending stimulus is once again a hypocrite in action.

BS. If he felt strongly against it, he should have tabled what he thought was best - and gone to the polls if it got voted down. You know what - if his party was the only one offering no stimulus at an election at that point, I would have voted for him.

Plain and simple, this country does not need another election, but if we have one, then let's give Harper a majority so he can put his ideas out there for all of us to judge, without having to worry about the Fibs, Blocheads, or Diipper agendas. Enough is enough, Conservative majority for four years, then the people can get a really good idea of what the Conservative policies are, and if they don't like them, vote them out.

You're right - who needs democracy. Harper has had his chance. There is a reason why the Conservatives can't get a majority - Harper. 60% of the country doesn't like the man. Once the Cons get that through their heads, and replace him as leader, then you just might see a Conservative majority. Until then, it's minority governments.

And the coalition was undemocratic a year ago, and nothing has changed. Coalition is treason, in my books. If the Fibs and Dips want to run as a coalition at the start of the campaign, make it clear, so everyone knows.

By the way, glad to be back after a few years absence!!!

You should read up on how a constitutional democracy works. While I didn't like the idea of a coalition - it's not anti-democratic, and certainly not treasonous - and so long as we have a multi-party system - it is a very real, and potential, form of government for us in the near future.

 

[earth_as_one]

A majority of Canadian voters did not vote for the Conservatives. Therefore a coalition of opposition parties would represent the will of a majority of Canadians.

I don't like Harper or the Conservatives party agenda either. But in order for the opposition to vote against a confidence bill and bring down the government, it should be based on the content of that bill, not political opportunism.... or it has to at least appear that way, or you'll piss off people like myself, who could be open to voting Liberal given the right circumstances.

I'm pretty sure I won't vote Liberal now. That pretty much leaves the NDP or a fringe party.

 

[Niflmir]

Balogna. The "coalition" that was in the wind at the end of last year had nothing to do with the will of the people and ALL to do with political grandstanding by Iggy and Laymton. They would NOT have been elected by the people (one of the factors in a democracy), but would have booted Harpy out and taken over. A non-violent & legal coup d'etat, as it were. And having the Crown interfering with it does not make it democratic at all either, but rather dictatorial. And I rather doubt that the "coalition" would be any better for Canadians than Harpy, Iggy, or Laymton individually.
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.

It is certainly not true that the prime minister of Canada is elected. They are chosen, by convention not law, to be the leader of the party with the most seats. But the point is that our parliament is not set up for cooperation.

First, the government gets to set the schedules on bills and declare all of them, even if there are less members of parliament in government than in opposition to the government. So, right off the bat a minority government in parliament is catering to ``special interests''. The only way the majority of parliament can produce bills is through private members bills.

Second, the prime minister (who is merely by convention chosen as the leader of the largest party, no law forces this to be so) has all sorts of nasty abilities such as when to call elections and when to prorogue parliament. All of those private members bills which were the only way that the majority of parliament could legislate (their job) that took so long to get into parliament? Wiped out.

Third, as I already mentioned, confidence votes. In principle this should force us back to an election so that we can put a majority government in power. Nowadays, no particular party has enough support to get the majority that the parliament was designed for and so the confidence vote is nothing but an extortion tool of the prime minister.

Fourth, we vote for members of parliament. We do not get to vote for the prime minister. Some people disagree with the first statement on a matter of principle and call for people who cross the floor to resign, but the fact of the matter is, nothing forces them to resign: you elect an individual. Therefore, we do not even elect the government. Why is this a problem? Because "this is the government the people elected" cannot be true. The government is chosen, by the governor general, to be, by convention, the largest party in the body of parliamentarians. In the case of a minority government this means that the majority of parliamentarians possess less say than a minority of parliamentarians, which one should rightly call, special interests.

All of these distinguishments vanish in the case of a majority government. But the rules for our parliament were written assuming a majority government would form. As it stands now the majority of parliamentarians are unable to legislate properly. The only way that we could ever have a ``cooperative government'' would be if the opposition parties did form a coalition government. Because they would have to cooperate with one another to keep the coalition alive.

So, I am sorry. You may be asking for cooperation, but you are opposed to the only thing that could ever cause it in the case of a minority government.

 

[Trex]

Wow, AlbertaBlue supporting Conservatives, a big surprise there. You claim that people should give Conservatives a majority, but surely you are not serious when you say that if people don’t like them, they can vote Conservatives out?

If people don’t like four years of Conservatives, which party do you suggest they vote for? Surely what you want is perpetual Conservative government, like you have in your beloved Alberta? Isn’t that the ultimate in paradise?

I suggest that they democratically elect William Shatner for PM.

Captain Kirk will take the Canadian Ship of State straight ahead just as fast a she will go.
"She canna take any more Captain"

Trex

 

[#juan]

The thing that burns my butt is the Home Reno Tax Credit that Harper promised but didn't include in the budget. An election will send that into neverland. I've spent over ten thousand dollars on home improvements thinking I would get the tax credit. Another nice mess Harpo.