In my mind Trudeau was the worst P.M. we ever had. Even worse than drunken old John A.
The Good side of Harper
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
In my mind Trudeau was the worst P.M. we ever had. Even worse than drunken old John A.
I am not an idiot, I know the difference between a Parliamentary and Republican system
Colpy, it is Parliamentary and Presidential system, not Republican system.
In no other Parliament are MPs routinely punished for not voting with the gov't.
I don’t know what are the officially prescribed penalties. However, I lived in Britain for seven years, and it was extremely rare for an MP to vote against his party, even when it was not a confidence motion. In a Parliamentary system, it just isn’t done. The only time an MP would vote against his party is when MPs are specifically given the free vote on a particular issue.
And anyway, even if PET brought in any rules, those would be for Liberal party only, Conservatives can have their own rules. Why didn’t Mulroney permit more free votes? Why doesn’t Harper give permission to his MPs to vote against the government whenever they wish (except for the confidence vote)? How many Conservatives MPs do you see voting against the motions of their government? Very few, and if somebody does, he is kicked out of the caucus.
So don’t blame it on PET, that is the Parliamentary system. When I lived in Britain, I cannot even recall a handful of instances where an MP voted against his party (except when free vote was superficially granted).
In short, if PET brought in any rules, you have had two conservative PMs after that, either of them could easily have changed the rules.
Colpy, it is Parliamentary and Presidential system, not Republican system.
In no other Parliament are MPs routinely punished for not voting with the gov't.
I don’t know what are the officially prescribed penalties. However, I lived in Britain for seven years, and it was extremely rare for an MP to vote against his party, even when it was not a confidence motion. In a Parliamentary system, it just isn’t done. The only time an MP would vote against his party is when MPs are specifically given the free vote on a particular issue.
And anyway, even if PET brought in any rules, those would be for Liberal party only, Conservatives can have their own rules. Why didn’t Mulroney permit more free votes? Why doesn’t Harper give permission to his MPs to vote against the government whenever they wish (except for the confidence vote)? How many Conservatives MPs do you see voting against the motions of their government? Very few, and if somebody does, he is kicked out of the caucus.
So don’t blame it on PET, that is the Parliamentary system. When I lived in Britain, I cannot even recall a handful of instances where an MP voted against his party (except when free vote was superficially granted).
In short, if PET brought in any rules, you have had two conservative PMs after that, either of them could easily have changed the rules.
I don't doubt for a second that you are entirely right, but it's still BULLSH*T.
Kweebeck and Ontario will become less and less a factor in this country as the population shifts to the west. It will be a long, long time before the west ever elects Liberals in any great numbers and as the population shifts, any popularity PET had will wane. Most of the people that adore him are old anyway and will be gone in a few years.
Wrong. The proper way to refer to the system is republican...........
Sorry, my BS meter is about to pop, so that's all you get tonight.
BTW, I have a degree with majors in History and Poly Sci........it is "republican".
Republicanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the population shifts from the east to the west as you say, that could undermine the strong conservative leanings out here. Most of the transients will be coming from a liberal environment and they'll be taking that bias with them. You don't suddenly become a conservative once you cross the Manitoba border. Nor do you have to follow the western philosophy just because you live here.
let us just agree to disagree on this. You say 'Republican', I say 'Presidential', let us leave it at that. We both could be right, I don't know.
It has already happened in USA. States such as Virginia, North Carolina, which were once solidly Republican, are tending more and more to the Democratic side.
Not only Obama carried both of them (normally they would be expected to go Republican, Gore and Kerry didn’t carry either), but even at the Senate level, Governor level etc., Democrats are winning more and more. That is bad news for conservatives.
So yes, the migration is already changing the political map of USA.
Colpy, Google for ‘presidential democracy’ or ‘presidential system’, you will find a whole bunch of websites describing the American system.
Mt_pockets1000, I thought of even a more striking example, California. California used to be reliable Republican state. It voted twice for Nixon, then for Ford, then twice for Reagan, then once for Bush.
But in 1992 there were enough immigrants (mostly Hispanics) to turn the state around from reliably Republican to reliably Democratic. It has consistently voted Democratic since 1992.
In the 70s when I lived in USA, a prominent Republican, Hayakawa, defeated the incumbent senator in California, John Tunney. After that Hayakawa was California Senator for a long time.
But I think he was the last Republican from California. California has not had a Republican senator for a long time now.
But in 1992 there were enough immigrants (mostly Hispanics) to turn the state around from reliably Republican to reliably Democratic. It has consistently voted Democratic since 1992.
In the 70s when I lived in USA, a prominent Republican, Hayakawa, defeated the incumbent senator in California, John Tunney. After that Hayakawa was California Senator for a long time.
But I think he was the last Republican from California. California has not had a Republican senator for a long time now.
Before I go any further I would say performancewise, Libs and Cons. over the years are in a dead heat- like Tweedledee and Tweedledumb. As far as Trudeau goes the following goes without saying, he was arrogant, he was an intellectual in the academic sense of the word, but who's to say he had common sense? He ran up a huge debt to the tune of about $400 billion and he brought down a document, that gave some people more rights- a lot of the wrong people in my view. He squandered $millions switching over to metric and he gave someone in Salmon Arm B.C. the finger. If all that makes him "great" so be it.
he brought down a document, that gave some people more rights- a lot of the wrong people in my view.
Indeed, JLM. He gave rights to minorities. Now, those may be wrong people in your opinion (women working outside home, gays etc.), but to me, they are not. They deserve fully as many rights as heterosexual white males (like you or I) and I for one, am proud that Trudeau guaranteed equal rights to minorities such as blacks, gays and women, through the Charter of Rights (easily the best document of its kind, certainly far superior to the American Bill of Rights).
No, like it or not, Trudeau will forever will be remembered fondly for giving us the Charter.
Indeed, JLM. He gave rights to minorities. Now, those may be wrong people in your opinion (women working outside home, gays etc.), but to me, they are not. They deserve fully as many rights as heterosexual white males (like you or I) and I for one, am proud that Trudeau guaranteed equal rights to minorities such as blacks, gays and women, through the Charter of Rights (easily the best document of its kind, certainly far superior to the American Bill of Rights).
No, like it or not, Trudeau will forever will be remembered fondly for giving us the Charter.
He squandered $millions switching over to metric
JLM, another great achievement by Trudeau. I had forgotten that one, thanks for reminding me.
JLM, another great achievement by Trudeau. I had forgotten that one, thanks for reminding me.
From what I'm reading here, it seems Trudeau was remembered one
way in Ontario & Quebec (the population hub), and differently in what
is left of Canada minus Ontario & Quebec. Is that a fair statement? 8O
Might that also be Harpers Legacy?
____________________
way in Ontario & Quebec (the population hub), and differently in what
is left of Canada minus Ontario & Quebec. Is that a fair statement? 8O
Might that also be Harpers Legacy?
____________________
Most people, once they are here and see that a world without Liberals is not as bad as they were led to believe, adapt remarkably well. We have re-education camps for those that resist.
While you may not know, others do. Just accept that you've made a mistake and move on.
Even if it is, that doesn’t help Harper all that much. The population is still concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. That is why any politician must appease Ontario and Quebec if he wants to get elected (he can safely ignore Alberta, usually Liberals ignore Alberta and conservatives take it for granted).
So if Harper is remembered in Ontario and Quebec in a negative manner, that means his overall standing is all shot to Hell. Being remembered fondly in Alberta isn’t enough. I assume any conservative (even Mulroney) is remembered fondly in Alberta.
And yes, Trudeau is universally respected and admired in Ontario and Quebec.
You should really stick to commenting on things you know something about. The only places Mulroney is fondly remembered in is Kweebeck and Mulroney's own mind.
One thing I don't understand is why you have such woody for PET considering the man was a Catholic and you have so little respect for Catholics.
Last edited: