Child of Flame Posted June 20, 2004 Posted June 20, 2004 Canada sux0rs!!! America r0x0rs!!! America pwnz0rs Canada!!! Stupid white boy runs like hell again ...remember this in 5 years when ya wants clean water...or timber...or real beer... <_< ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... Anyone who actually thought I was serious needs to dunk their head in a commode. (I think that's what you guys call it, or is that just the brits?)
Sargallath Abraxium Posted June 20, 2004 Posted June 20, 2004 Anyone who actually thought I was serious needs to dunk their head in a commode. (I think that's what you guys call it, or is that just the brits?) ...toilet...s***ter...throne o' the Grand Duke...it's all good, lad... :D ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... A long, long time ago, but I can still remember, How the Trolling used to make me smile. And I knew if I had my chance, I could egg on a few Trolls to "dance", And maybe we'd be happy for a while. But then Krackhead left and so did Klown; Volo and Turnip were banned, Mystake got run out o' town. Bad news on the Front Page, BIOweenia said goodbye in a heated rage. I can't remember if I cried When I heard that TORN was recently fried, But sadness touched me deep inside, The day...Black Isle died. For tarna, Visc, an' the rest o' the ol' Islanders that fell along the way
Phosphor Posted June 20, 2004 Posted June 20, 2004 ...ya think the Liberals'll do it any different??...hell, Chretien didna 'ave a great relationship wit' ol' Howdy Doody Bush, but he still kept the production line goin' that Mulroney started...one o' Martin's first plays as PM was ta try an' jump the Liberals back inta the sack wit' the US right away...either way the vote goes, we're screwed, lad; plain an' simple... :angry: ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... Martin tried to patch up Canada-US relations, but was pretty much brushed off by Bush. I don't think Bush is anymore interested in good relations than Chretien was. Of course the production line that Mulroney started is still going, it makes money for the government, they're not about to stop it. Just like Chretien never repealed the GST, despite numerous promises to do so - it makes too much money for Ottawa's coffers. I don't believe we're terribly screwed if the Liberals win, at least no more so than what we're used to. We'll be more screwed if the Conservatives win. I think that if Martin stays in, and Kerry wins the US, things will be a lot better for North America in general, and maybe finally we can move forward into the era we are actually in instead of scrambling backwards into the ultra-conservative past.
Magnum Opus Posted June 20, 2004 Posted June 20, 2004 What baffles and angers me is that people cannot seem to see through Harper; his entire campaign has been to smear Martin and keep people angry. When you step back and really look at Harper and the Conservatives, there's nothing but shallow, right-wing mandates there. They're counting heavily on two things to win this election; that people will be mad at the Liberals over the sponsorship scandal, and that Ontarians will be angry at the Liberal provincial budget. The budget should be a non-issue. If the Conservatives win, the budget isn't going to vanish, rather things will be worse for Ontario in the realm of health care. We'll be double-hit with the budget premiums and with the Conservative's for-profit health system. So those who wish to use provincially-funded medical services will be paying for low-grade care (since all the good doctors will go into the for-profit sector), or get hit with premiums plus the payments for private care. At any rate, I want Martin to have a fair chance at getting things cleaned up, and I want Harper to lose. So I'm voting Liberal. Again. All things considered, I don't think that registering your company offshore to avoid paying certain taxes is all that big a deal, although that's a comment tainted by a view that's seen a gun registry explode from 2 million dollars to two billon, an ad scandal that cost us a few hundred million so that bereaucrats could shuffle the money back and forth between them and pay themselves handsomely to do so until it was all gone, and yes, even politics on the provincial level with Dalton McGuinty breaking virtually every single stance on which he ran his campaign. I am curious about how much the near-universal outrage at McGuinty's Liberals is going to be reflected on the Federal level, since Ontario's been a pretty reliable stronghold for the liberals in the last few elections, and if enough people forget that punishing the federal liberals != punishing the provincial party (ie. McGuinty), things could crumble for Martin quite quickly. The Freeps (local newspaper, although that's not it's official moniker ) has run quite a few editorials in the last few weeks that basically remind people not to let spite rule their vote, but those polls that the press keeps dragging out make me wonder just how many people are listening. What they ought to do is make voting more like a highschool test or exam. Your vote gets a certain weight based on your knowledge of just what it is that you're voting for, with the people who know nothing about anything having their votes count the least.
Phosphor Posted June 20, 2004 Posted June 20, 2004 All things considered, I don't think that registering your company offshore to avoid paying certain taxes is all that big a deal, although that's a comment tainted by a view that's seen a gun registry explode from 2 million dollars to two billon, an ad scandal that cost us a few hundred million so that bereaucrats could shuffle the money back and forth between them and pay themselves handsomely to do so until it was all gone, and yes, even politics on the provincial level with Dalton McGuinty breaking virtually every single stance on which he ran his campaign. The thing that irks me about Martin's off-shore registering is that he did that while Finance Minister. He sat there drafting federal budgets that often required cuts and reductions, while his multi-million dollar company wasn't paying a cent towards Canadian taxes. It's extremely two-faced and rather insulting, really. He expected us to pay into the country, but he didn't have to with that company? At any rate, it's the lesser of evils in this election. Heck, the sponsorship scandal is as well, at least to me. Yeah, it was a crappy thing to do but I also don't believe it had Martin's approval. As for McGuinty breaking his promises, I'm willing to be somewhat forgiving since the PC's were quite deceptive with the state of the province's money. The Liberals didn't have a clear impression of what the finances were like. However, if things don't improve under McGuinty I'll be pretty irked. If people could only have their vote count by knowing what they were voting for, the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance, considering they don't really have a platform aside from some cleverly worded platitudes and less-than-clever smears against Martin.
Magnum Opus Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 The thing that irks me about Martin's off-shore registering is that he did that while Finance Minister. He sat there drafting federal budgets that often required cuts and reductions, while his multi-million dollar company wasn't paying a cent towards Canadian taxes. It's extremely two-faced and rather insulting, really. He expected us to pay into the country, but he didn't have to with that company? At any rate, it's the lesser of evils in this election. Heck, the sponsorship scandal is as well, at least to me. Yeah, it was a crappy thing to do but I also don't believe it had Martin's approval. As for McGuinty breaking his promises, I'm willing to be somewhat forgiving since the PC's were quite deceptive with the state of the province's money. The Liberals didn't have a clear impression of what the finances were like. However, if things don't improve under McGuinty I'll be pretty irked. If people could only have their vote count by knowing what they were voting for, the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance, considering they don't really have a platform aside from some cleverly worded platitudes and less-than-clever smears against Martin. Yup. I look at it as more an issue of "Well, sure, he may have avoided paying taxes on his company, but at least he didn't pull a Cheney-Halliburton". The lesser of two evils, IMO, "just" avoiding paying taxes and being extremely hypocritical about it, instead of using the government as an actual source of business. And I will admit that my opinion of McGuinty in particular will improve a heck of a lot if what he's trying to accomplish with this health "premium" actually works, and we do get a better system out of it. But when you see virtually every promise that came out of the guy's mouth before he got elected, being broken after he gets into office, it really doesn't do much for your confidence level of politicians in general. But I just took a look at the official websites for the PC Party and the Liberals, and you're absolutely right when you say that Harper just doesn't have a platform. Vague "goals", when you can call them that, each of which are prefaced by numerous statements of how the Liberals have failed. I honestly think that site spends more time slamming the Liberals then it does putting forth it's own agenda, and the language they use sounds like it's being directed at the "juvenile delinquent" crowd more often than not. Take a look at their Headlines section for an example of what I mean, and then glance at the Liberal site. Overall, I just get the sense that Martin has a clear goal, and that he's got some clear ideas about how to get there; whether they'll work or not is anyone's guess. Harper doesn't even have that, and comes across more as a guy saying and doing anything just to get elected. His campaign ads talk about his integrity, but damned if I can find a glimpse of it on that site. That assumes, of course, that the visions and policies presented by the websites are what's really going to be implemented by these people.... I have my doubts about that, too. It's that damned cynicism rearing it's ugly head again. As you said, though, the Conservative party doesn't present anything in the way of policies or concrete ideas, just catchphrases. I will, however, admit that I did like their stance on the armed forces: "Support for our Canadian Forces The Conservative Party will fight for our armed forces." Yes! Bring the troops home, round up all the Conservatives, and ship 'em off to Afghanistan! *nods* Tax dollars well spent. :D (sure, given my opinion of most politicians these days I could say the same for any major party, but the PCs actually said it. )
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 The NDP are not about high taxes, their tax strategy is to more evenly distribute the tax burden, so the high income earners pay more than the low income earners. A graded tax scale, basically, and I think it's a good idea. if you're a capitalist (objectivist) such as i, graduated tax scales are discriminatory, and therefore too high. i'm personally against any income based tax but that's just me. the NDP programs i was reading about require taxes higher than we have in the US... therefore my comment of "high taxes". one note, you say "more evenly distriute the tax burden" then follow up with "high income earners pay more"... aren't those two statements contradictory They are the most environmentally-conscious party (moreso than the Green Party, even), and definately support social programs. They're the working-class party, unlike the Liberals or Conservatives who cater to the upper classes. yes, i had gotten that from their platform statement (yup, i actually read those things...). As far as taxation for health care goes, we in Ontario are about to be paying extra for it anyways, and more unfairly than the NDP would allow for. ugh... sorry to hear that. The NDP of course are not going to win (we'll never have an NDP PM), but they might gain ground this election. Or be utterly destroyed. One or the other. small party i assume? Chretien was not far left, he was just eccentric and didn't bow to American pressure. by our standards he is pretty far left. i personally never expected him to bow to any pressure from the US, though it seems he did bow to french pressure at times... i think as the leader of our northern neighbor, he could have been a bit more respectful... As far as the Conservative platform being "centrist" in the USA, I'm not sure. The Conservatives would limit or remove gay rights and abortion, would hinder arts funding and artistic freedoms and boost military spending, bring in for-profit health care (essentially decimating the health care system for the average or low-income Canadian), give tax cuts to the wealthy, and hinder environmental protections (they say they support agriculture, but they don't; as evidenced by their desire to remove the Kyoto protocols, amongst other things), and bow to US pressures. contrary to popular belief, these are all fairly libertarian views with the exception of the gay rights and abortion issues. being of that mindset myself, i take an extreme stand on any and all social programs funded by the government (health care, education, etc.) and particularly on taxes. i've always been pretty pro-choice though i'm uncertain why homosexuals need their rights spelled out any differently than mine... regardless of whether wealthy get tax cuts, they still pay 2/3 of all the taxes... even an across the board cut will benefit the wealthy more than the poor, that's just the way math works. the kyoto protocol is pretty weak and even most of the countries that signed up to it are saying they can't even meet the low cuts as is... not even close actually. this is the reason england, russia and the US aren't willing to sign up. just because someone doesn't support kyoto doesn't mean they aren't for agriculture. they might just be able to see the economic damage such "protocols" can cause... that'll far outweigh any benefits from cutting greenhouse gasses... There are often Conservative MPs whom require damage control from Harper, as they say something they really shouldn't (like homosexuality should be outlawed, and that bilingualism will not be supported under a Conservative government), ALL political parties have this problem. people tend to notice only those that sit in opposing camps, however. politics are corrupt in general, and i don't think i've yet heard a politician with a cure, other than his own resignation. The only thing I agree on with the Conservative platform is military spending. While I'm not a supporter of war, the Canadian military is a joke, and if we want to be taken seriously, and have a role in global peacekeeping, we need a better military. that comment surprises me... He was well-recieved at the G8 summit, so I think he's capable of doing well for Canada on the world stage. out of curiosity, did he also attend the bilderberg meeting that was held concurrently in italy? an invite is generally a good sign of things to come... I think that if Kerry wins in the US, we'd have a new, positive time of Canada-US relations, with Kerry and Martin as leaders. i suppose we're all allowed our opinions... taks comrade taks... just because.
EnderAndrew Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Last time I checked, Martin just went on about how much he supported the US and Bush through everything. I'd say US-Canadian relations are good right now.
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 i personally don't care if he follows us or not... just a little respect, that's all. taks comrade taks... just because.
Phosphor Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 if you're a capitalist (objectivist) such as i, graduated tax scales are discriminatory, and therefore too high. i'm personally against any income based tax but that's just me. the NDP programs i was reading about require taxes higher than we have in the US... therefore my comment of "high taxes". one note, you say "more evenly distriute the tax burden" then follow up with "high income earners pay more"... aren't those two statements contradictory I think that high-income earners paying more in taxes is a more even distribution, as it's more balanced towards income. Wealthy families and individuals often pay less in income tax due to a high volume of tax-exempt investments such as RRSPs and such, while lower income people do not, and 100% of their income is taxable. With the new health premiums in Ontario, it's the mid-range earners that are getting hit the hardest, with the payments only increasing a couple of hundred dollars per extra 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars for the higher income people. I'm not much of a capitalist. Sure, I'd love to have a lot of money for the convenience, but I'm not a financially ambitious sort of person. The frantic high-pressure scramble to accumulate wealth is just not appealing to me, and the desire is simply not in me. And I don't think I should be punished for that, and that's rather what it feels like when the mid-range earners are hit with the lion's share of taxes. Small party i assume?" Yeah, the NDP are quite small and actually lost official party status in the last election. They hold more seats in Saskatchewan and the east coast, but out west and in Ontario they're pretty small. Unfortunately, they're getting chewed up in our system which is fast becoming a two-party system akin to the US. by our standards he is pretty far left. i personally never expected him to bow to any pressure from the US, though it seems he did bow to french pressure at times... i think as the leader of our northern neighbor, he could have been a bit more respectful... He hated Bush, I think. He got on really well with Clinton, but as soon as Bush took over, things went sour. Can't really blame him, either. Martin has attempted to restore relations, but Bush seems to hold a grudge and has offered a rather chilly shoulder. contrary to popular belief, these are all fairly libertarian views with the exception of the gay rights and abortion issues. being of that mindset myself, i take an extreme stand on any and all social programs funded by the government (health care, education, etc.) and particularly on taxes. i've always been pretty pro-choice though i'm uncertain why homosexuals need their rights spelled out any differently than mine... Social programs are a funny thing. Canada is very demanding of social programs, arts spending, environment and so on, so you'd think the NDP would do well. But people don't vote for them (I think people are overly concerned with looking bad if they vote for a losing party, which is why Harper's current strategy is saying "We're going to win anyways, you might as well vote for us."). Social programs can easily get out of control, and while I support them, I think there needs to be more private support of them as well. The thing with Canada is, we have a small population so there's not a ton of money to go around, and a lot of money gets spent on infrastructure (since it's such a huge country), and even there things are in a bad way (the trans-Canada highway is reportedly an embarrassment for example). Anyways. Social programs are important, but can easily go out of control. As for homosexuals and rights, I don't think it's an issue of having rights spelled out differently, it's simply an issue of having the same rights. The right to marry, the right to not get beat up, harrassed or killed because of who you are, stuff like that. The Conservatives would like to remove attacks on gays from the list of hate crimes. the kyoto protocol is pretty weak and even most of the countries that signed up to it are saying they can't even meet the low cuts as is... not even close actually. this is the reason england, russia and the US aren't willing to sign up. just because someone doesn't support kyoto doesn't mean they aren't for agriculture. they might just be able to see the economic damage such "protocols" can cause... that'll far outweigh any benefits from cutting greenhouse gasses... But something has to be done about greenhouse gasses, global warming and the sorry state of environmental care. Maybe Kyoto isn't the best answer (and I agree it's got problems), but it's at least a start, or at least a show of support for the environment. Yes, the economy is important, but so is the environment. that comment surprises me... Why? out of curiosity, did he also attend the bilderberg meeting that was held concurrently in italy? an invite is generally a good sign of things to come... Not sure if he was invited. Though he did have to get back to Canada to campaign for the election. i suppose we're all allowed our opinions... Well, Canada/US relations can't be any worse than they are now.
Beerfish Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 I'll be voting NDP as I always do however I did briefly think about voting Liberal just to try and unseat the Conservative in my riding. Since I think the Conservative candidate is probably safe in winning the seat I'll stick to my regular political leaning.
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 And I don't think I should be punished for that, and that's rather what it feels like when the mid-range earners are hit with the lion's share of taxes. while i can't comment on how it works in canada, the top 5% or so wage earners here pay 53% (or something to that affect) of the taxes. mid to upper-ranged folk get hit with about another 40% or so (i fall into that bracket myself). i just happen to work in a field that pays quite well without a mad dash for cash... Unfortunately, they're getting chewed up in our system which is fast becoming a two-party system akin to the US. two-party systems are almost becoming an automatic these days. even here we had several back in the 1800s. they all slowly faded and joined each other to the eventual democrat and republican parties we have now. oddly, prior to the civil war, the roles of the two parties were actually reversed from what they are now... The Conservatives would like to remove attacks on gays from the list of hate crimes. that's actually where my problem lies. i.e. if i get beat up, it's assault. if the same guy beats up someone that's gay, it's a hate crime. as a result, the gay guy's life is worth more than mine? why? i kinda thought ALL crime is motivated by hate of some sort and just because that person is some kind of minority, they shouldn't be treated any differently. But something has to be done about greenhouse gasses, global warming and the sorry state of environmental care. Maybe Kyoto isn't the best answer (and I agree it's got problems), but it's at least a start, or at least a show of support for the environment. Yes, the economy is important, but so is the environment. the problem is that economic impact actually creates more of what you're trying to avoid in the long run. ALSO, most greenhouse gasses are attributable to natural causes, e.g. plankton in the ocean, volcanoes, etc. the human affect on these is minimal at best AND, the number one gas is actually water vapor (95%). in short, the impact of anything we try to do will only wreak economic hazards without actually solving any problems. i think the reasons for reducing pollution should be removed from the warming problem... we should reduce emissions for health reasons first (regardless of the warming impact of human activity, pollution just isn't healthy). Why? typically people with neo-socialist political ideals don't care too much for increased military spending. however, i do recognize canada's "lacking" in that area so some lattitude should be expected. Well, Canada/US relations can't be any worse than they are now. hehe, not exactly what i was referring to... assuming things would be better stricly because of kerry is a bit optimistic. given our current state of affairs, one must remember that even the president can't just go in and "reverse" everything. people forget that even clinton went to "war" 4 times while in office... it's just that those wars were more popular at the time. taks comrade taks... just because.
Phosphor Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 I understand your comments, Taks, and while I disagree with them, I see your point. I'm trying to look at a things-could-be-better scenario, and while the current solutions aren't perfect (different rights, a flawed environmental improvement system), I see it as a step in the right direction and a foundation upon which to hopefully build something functional. It's at least a move ahead, I think. These measures are only going to be effective if they are improved upon, however. Kyoto isn't going to make anything better if it's not refined, and hate crimes will only build resentment, but they do create awareness and can perhaps point towards something better than what we have now. So that's why I support the concepts. I see Harper is campaigning this week on a "message of hope" in Ontario after doing some damage control (once again having to say something said by a Conservative MP is not party policy, when he's said it himself - the issue of non-supported bilingualism) and having to step back his attacks on Martin and the problem of child porn. The Conservative platform-of-the-week is "hope and change", again, no real platform just a nice sounding phrase. The NDP seem to be mulling over a partnership with the Liberals, should the Liberals win a minority government. Interesting. Could be beneficial for both parties.
Magnum Opus Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 When I actually take a step back and look at the kinds of campaigns Harper and Martin have run, it makes me realize that it's their overall conduct which is making me lean toward the Liberals. Martin's accorded himself in more or less the way I'd expect the leader of my country to. He's got actual plans for the country, and he's refrained from doing nothing more than attacking his opponents. On the other hand, Harper hasn't really come out and said what his exact position is on a lot of things, and every speech he makes hinges on the fact that it's time for a change, time for something better, etc etc. ie. It hinges on someone else being at 24 Sussex Dr.. The whole campaign, he's been acting the way I'd want a Leader of the Opposition to act (minus the personal attacks), attacking and questioning the Leader's policies while not having to offer an alternative. Sure, he is the leader of the opposition right now, but he supposedly want to be PM, and right now I'm just not seeing him act that way, either with his general behaviour or his party's platform. *sighs* Looks like it'll be a Liberal vote from me to keep Harper out, rather than because I particularly want to see Martin stay. I guess I'm not quite cynical enough yet to believe that both of them are lying about the majority of their issues; if that were the case, if I knew that Harper would implement a vision that runs almost backwards from the blurry one he's offering right now, I'd probably vote for him. As it is, it's the Devil We Know for me.
Phosphor Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 If the Liberals win a minority government, do you think they'll have a chance of holding together by making deals with the NDP and/or Bloc? I tend to think that while this election will certainly be close, it is more in Martin's favour as the Conservatives have to win at least 155 seats in order to take over. As long as they come in under that, the Liberals will have a minority and the chance to make it work with the other parties. Now, if they cannot hold it together and Harper is asked if he can form a government, I don't see him getting much support from the other parties. Maybe from the Bloc if they're feeling opportunistic, but certainly not from the NDP. Could be interesting.
Phosphor Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Michael Moore and Ralph Nader have commented on the Canadian election over the past couple of days, warning against voting Conservative. Both make excellent and astute points, and in true Canadian fashion people are outraged that non-Canadians, and more specifically Americans dare comment on our business.. As though we never comment on the US. Perhaps they're upset because the Americans make better observations about the election than many Canadian commentators make. Canadians gripe about being ignored and then when somebody pays attention we tell them to bugger off.. Sheesh. Nader's comments Moore's comments
taks Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 the multi-party thing is what is strange to me... well, that's what makes it interesting at least. as i noted before, we used to have one (a multi-party system), but mergers and the like, and a real need for funding brought us to the two party system. funding, btw, is probably the prime motivator in a large society for a two party system... it just gets too hard to counter the bigger party, so smaller ones unite to offset the power, the bigger party is now smaller so they modify their platform to absorb some related small parties, etc... till there are only two left. perhaps canada is on this path as well? taks comrade taks... just because.
Magnum Opus Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 If the Liberals win a minority government, do you think they'll have a chance of holding together by making deals with the NDP and/or Bloc? I tend to think that while this election will certainly be close, it is more in Martin's favour as the Conservatives have to win at least 155 seats in order to take over. As long as they come in under that, the Liberals will have a minority and the chance to make it work with the other parties. Now, if they cannot hold it together and Harper is asked if he can form a government, I don't see him getting much support from the other parties. Maybe from the Bloc if they're feeling opportunistic, but certainly not from the NDP. Could be interesting. I think the Liberals would have a chance (however slim) at holding together in Parliament even if the Conservatives technically got more seats in this election. If the vote's as close as I think it's going to be, even if the Conservatives end up with a couple more seats than the Liberals, Martin could make a case for his remaining PM if he gets enough solid support from, for example, the NDP. IIRC, something like that happened in 1925 with McKenzie's (?) Liberals, didn't it? I think the Conservatives got something like 115 seats in that election, the liberals 105 (just making up numbers here, but I think they're close), and the Progressives 23 or so, but with the Progressive-Liberal alliance, McKenzie retained his tenure as PM, even though he didn't win even a minority government. Granted, the House sort of fell apart after that and I think there was another general election in '26, but still... there is a precedent. Now, I don't know how likely Martin is to try something like that, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, either. In all honesty, that might be a good scenario for the country: the Conservatives winning the election, but Martin being asked to form the government with the support of another party. You get the Liberals out of office (technically) so that they can clean up their party's corruption, you still get Martin as PM who, let's face it, has a lot more managerial and political experience than Harper, and you don't have anyone with a majority that allows them to bull anything through the House that they darn well please. That's what Chretien was used to for all those years, and we can see the effects that that had on his party. The NDP have expressed a willingness to work with a minority government of any stripe, but I can't bring myself to believe that they'd be willing to same degree with the Conservatives as they'd be with the Liberals. I don't know much about the Bloc, though, not even when it comes to their stance on the issues and whether they'd be considered more Liberal than Conservative or vise versa. It just seems to me that if push came to shove, more parties would end up supporting Martin than Harper. Could be very interesting.
Phosphor Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 the multi-party thing is what is strange to me... well, that's what makes it interesting at least. as i noted before, we used to have one (a multi-party system), but mergers and the like, and a real need for funding brought us to the two party system. funding, btw, is probably the prime motivator in a large society for a two party system... it just gets too hard to counter the bigger party, so smaller ones unite to offset the power, the bigger party is now smaller so they modify their platform to absorb some related small parties, etc... till there are only two left. perhaps canada is on this path as well? taks Yeah. Soon it's going to be the Conservatives and likely some merger with the Liberals and NDP (that's my guess, anyways, nothing official has been mentioned about it, but I think the outcome of this election is going to kickstart the process). I think strategic voting plays a bit part as well in the issue. People vote against someone rather than for (I'm guilty of this), and so two main parties manifest and the smaller ones vanish or merge with the larger parties. I think a Liberal-NDP merger could result in a very appealing party, and would definately threaten the Conservatives.
Phosphor Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 I think the Liberals would have a chance (however slim) at holding together in Parliament even if the Conservatives technically got more seats in this election. If the vote's as close as I think it's going to be, even if the Conservatives end up with a couple more seats than the Liberals, Martin could make a case for his remaining PM if he gets enough solid support from, for example, the NDP. IIRC, something like that happened in 1925 with McKenzie's (?) Liberals, didn't it? I think the Conservatives got something like 115 seats in that election, the liberals 105 (just making up numbers here, but I think they're close), and the Progressives 23 or so, but with the Progressive-Liberal alliance, McKenzie retained his tenure as PM, even though he didn't win even a minority government. Granted, the House sort of fell apart after that and I think there was another general election in '26, but still... there is a precedent. Now, I don't know how likely Martin is to try something like that, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, either. In all honesty, that might be a good scenario for the country: the Conservatives winning the election, but Martin being asked to form the government with the support of another party. You get the Liberals out of office (technically) so that they can clean up their party's corruption, you still get Martin as PM who, let's face it, has a lot more managerial and political experience than Harper, and you don't have anyone with a majority that allows them to bull anything through the House that they darn well please. That's what Chretien was used to for all those years, and we can see the effects that that had on his party. The NDP have expressed a willingness to work with a minority government of any stripe, but I can't bring myself to believe that they'd be willing to same degree with the Conservatives as they'd be with the Liberals. I don't know much about the Bloc, though, not even when it comes to their stance on the issues and whether they'd be considered more Liberal than Conservative or vise versa. It just seems to me that if push came to shove, more parties would end up supporting Martin than Harper. Could be very interesting. Martin has made the mistake however of saying that it's "common sense" that whomever gets the most seats should lead, so if he's going to stick to his word, he may give victory to Harper even though neither has a majority. This wouldn't be fair to the Liberal party, it's supporters and voters though. Of course, I can't see the Conservatives holding together a minority government. Not sure about McKenzie, but Lester Pearson ran two successful back-to-back minority governments in the 1960s. And I believe it was Diefenbaker who won a minority and then swept to a majority victory, so there's certainly prescedents for a successful minorty Liberal government. The Liberals are going to have to clean up their corruption victorious or not, if they want to maintain support. They're on thin ice, and need to fix things in a major way. I agree with your assessment of a minority being good for the country. In these final days, things are looking interesting. Harper's been rather touchy, which is quite the contrast to his usual calm demeanour. Perhaps things aren't going as well as he thinks or wants. And it looks like Layton's prediction about the Alliance/PC merger being good for the NDP was right, they seem to be doing well right now.
Phosphor Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Interesting article that again shows either the Conservatives have a hidden agenda or that the party is full of rogue MPs with their own agenda (the sort of MPs that Harper has said must follow the party line or be removed, and have not been removed; also the kind that are free to table a bill regarding removal or limiations of rights like abortion or gay rights). Tory MP's interview on Charter creates storm Last Updated Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:02:27 TORONTO - Liberal Leader Paul Martin lashed out at one of the Conservative party's most prominent MPs on Friday, saying Randy White's recent dismissal of the power of Canadian courts amounts to a wakeup call about the party's real intentions. At a news conference in Toronto, Martin called the British Columbia MP's position "a fundamental attack on one of the pillars of our democratic system" and called on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to condemn White's position or admit that it does represent the views of the whole party. "It can't be ignored, not by me, not by Mr. Harper, not by Canadians." In a May 19 interview for a documentary on same-sex marriage by Alexis Mackintosh called Let No One Put Asunder, White speaks frankly about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and suggests many in his party feel as he does: "The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'The politicians make the laws and the courts do not.' The courts interpret that law. And if we don't like that interpretation, there's the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal government has never invoked and said they will not use. I believe we'll see that with us in the House of Commons because enough is enough of this stuff
Oerwinde Posted June 27, 2004 Author Posted June 27, 2004 Conservatives are scary. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
taks Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 it's scary that mr. white doesn't like judges writing laws without the chartered authority to do so? it's scary that you would think as such. even if people think a law is good or even just, it must be formed within the framework of the system, otherwise, what's the point of the system? taks comrade taks... just because.
Oerwinde Posted June 29, 2004 Author Posted June 29, 2004 it's scary that mr. white doesn't like judges writing laws without the chartered authority to do so? it's scary that you would think as such. even if people think a law is good or even just, it must be formed within the framework of the system, otherwise, what's the point of the system? taks Its called precedent. They make decisions based on interpretation of the written law, which is their job, and every case after that is judged based on that first case. Its how its worked for hundreds of years and seems like a good system to me. Edit: Well, Liberals managed to beat the Conservatives. Excellent. Unfortunately the Conservative MP beat out the NDP candidate in my riding by 0.4% The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now