Barts

Your diatribe is so pervasive, Argus, I suspect the problem may be you and not others. I too have worked with politicians and bureaucrats, and not only in Canada. I found a group of people who like most people generally try to do a good job. Do they fail from time to time? Of course. Are there some less than qualified people? Of course. But that's no different from any human enterprise. But your blanket condemnation, I would suggest, likely says more about you than about those you condemn.

So why didn't Stephen Harper do what you're saying at the end of November when he had a chance? Stephen Harper has shown he's no leader. Lastly, why do Harpercrats continue to lie about the coalition? It is not lead by a "Separatist", so why would you hope to pass off a lie about this to folks on this forum?

You don't know the Khadr story do you? Khadr was seriously wounded by shrapnel. The Americans first shot him in the back twice.. Then for whatever reason cooler heads prevailed and he was given medical treatment. As well, there's no evidence that Khadr was the person who threw the grenade that allegedly killed Christopher Speers. Keepitsimple, why do you think it is that people post on this site without doing even the minimum necessary research to inform themselves about an issue? It's not as if it is difficult to look up the information. Why would people willfully, in your view, choose to remain ignorant, and from that ignorance condemn other people?

Let me jump in here. I personally take the side of law and justice. To paraphrase a mantra, if you don't take the side of law and justice, the terrorists win. To cast the Khadr decision in terms of them and us is to do deny the rule of law. Do you, Mr. Canada, deny the supremacy of law?

Buying a budget from Stephen Harper is as dumb as investing money with Bernie Madoff.

You do not know all the men and women in Parliament; that makes your toilet flushing comment worthy of nothing more than the toilet itself. The fact is that most of the people in Parliament are good people. Before commenting on political things you know nothing about, perhaps you should consider getting more deeply involved in politics, parties, and politicians. Ignorance does not become you.

To paraphrase Carville, it's not the economy, stupid. It's Harper, stupid. For the NDP and the Bloc it doesn't matter what's in the budget because the problem is Stephen Harper. The NDP and the Bloc, and perhaps even the Liberals, know that Stephen Harper cannot be trusted to implement the budget and work with the Opposition parties. The problem is Stephen Harper. If he was trustworthy the Opposition parties might work with him, but he cannot be trusted, and he will seize the first opportunity--even to the detriment of the country--to destroy the Opposition parties.

The Globe & Mail's Adam Radwanski in Calling All Conservatives is publicly calling on the Conservatives to show their faces. What are Conservatives afraid of?

If Ignatieff votes down Harper, Ignatieff will remain Prime Minister for about three years, in accord with the coalition agreement with the NDP and the BQ, and given the dynamics of election-calling. Three years from now, the recession will have eased, Harper will have left the scene, concerns about the Coalition will have eased or evaporated (except among the western Conservative kool-aid drinkers) and the Liberals (rightly or wrongly) will take credit for piloting the ship of state through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Ignatieff will go to the polls, likely win a majority, and herald in two terms as Prime Minister. As for the Conservatives, they will have a new leader, and given there is little leadership material to choose from because it's essentially the old Reform Party with its less than intellectually astute gang of angry white red necks, it's doubtful the Conservatives will ever form a government again, unless of course the becomes a progressive Conservative party.

All through Chretien's tenure progressive advocates, particularly advocates for some level of proportional representation, were decrying the fact that because of our antiquated "first-past-the-post" electoral system people were not being fairly represented in Parliament. To suggest that those you call "hand-wringers" were not calling Chretien's electoral victories an affront to democracy is just flat out wrong. You might want to review the policy positions of all of the smaller parties, the Greens, and the NDP over the last many decades. Dislike who you will, Keepitsimple, but do them the courtesy of at least not misleading others about them. Let's put this transgression down to stupidity rather than malice.

"Oh, Canada, c'mon" indeed. It truly was a national embarrassment that a Prime Minister who had demonstrated his incompetence had to run to the monarch for a time out rather than stand up and be held accountable. It was even more embarrassing that he could run to the monarch. Clearly the Constitution needs some amendments.

Sometimes the level of political discourse is disappointing. Can you help me understand what purpose such characterizations serve, apart from obscuring the lack of cogent argument?

The issue isn't the budget. It's Stephen Harper himself. It doesn't matter what's in the budget because Stephen Harper cannot be trusted to implement it, and cannot be trusted not to take down any party that supported it as soon as it serves his political ambition. Moreover whatever is in the budget it's there not to help Canadians, but to help keep his job. Harper has demonstrated that Canadians are of little concern to him. His concern is his own all-absorbing ambition and pure hatred for the other parties. Harper is a deeply flawed person. If there are useful measures in the budget, an Ignatieff led coalition can implement them. He might as well as the only reason there's a plan for a stimulus budget is because Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe are demanding one. Moreover, if Ignatieff brings down Harper and heads a coalition government, we can count on, at least, 2 1/2 years more likely 3 years of electoral stability because of the coalition agreement. If Harper remains in power you can expect an election as soon as he feels he might win. According to some pundits, before the end of 2009. Which means no electoral stability at a time when stability is needed most. Harper had his chance, and showed he lacks both the competence and integrity to lead Canadians. How many chances do you think he deserves? How many times should the Opposition parties let Harper betray them and Canadians?

Please Mr. Ignatieff, do not appease Harper. Mr. Ignattief, there is only one reason, worthy of dignity, for you to give Stephen Harper your vote of confidence and allow him to remain as Prime Minister. The reason is you’ve judged that, in these times threatening all Canadians, they will be safer led by Stephen Harper than by you. Is that your judgment? All other reasons, however rationalized, will be partisan opportunism, borne of the same species as Stephen Harper’s 27 November 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement. Such Harper-like reasons are contrived to advance personal ambition and political party fortunes with little regard for the cost exacted from the common needs, rights, and expectations of Canadians. On 7 September 2008, Stephen Harper engineered a general election—in contempt of his own fixed election date law. Since then he has revealed himself more than merely uninterested and incapable of helping Canadians; he has revealed himself a present and future danger to us all. It’s not only that Stephen Harper deceives us, despises laws and rights, disdains his professed principles, dismisses the counsel of those more capable than he, detests constraints on his power, and denied the enormity of the dire economic threats endangering Canadians. No, not only that. In the week before Parliament was prorogued, Stephen Harper raised hate between Canadians—risked rending Canada apart—to keep his clutch on power. During a national emergency when the only safe course was to bring Canadians together, Stephen Harper wreaked an assault on Canadian unity and cooperation to service his own ambitions and satisfy his own enmities. Stephen Harper—the man, the politician, and his duplicity—is a greater danger to Canadians personally than the economic storm they are struggling to survive. Would you, Mr. Ignatieff, abandon Canadians to him? Stephen Harper, in further deception, would have us believe that the coming confidence vote concerns his latest budget attempt—a budget crafted not to help Canadians, but to keep him in power by assuaging you and your Opposition colleagues. In truth, the only confidence matter at issue is Stephen Harper himself: a man whom you know to be incompetent and unprincipled, and whom Canadians can neither trust nor depend upon. Tellingly, Stephen Harper appointed eighteen new Conservative Senators and is not preparing his caucus or party for an election. Stephen Harper is acting as someone who believes—perhaps as a consequence of his discussions with the Governor General—that the pending confidence vote can produce only one of two outcomes: either he will remain Prime Minister or the Governor General will ask you to form a government. Do not appease Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, under the illusion however convincing or comfortable that you can help Canadians or rebuild the Liberal Party, even in the short-term, from the Opposition bench. From that weak and impoverished obscurity, you may be able to soften some of Stephen Harper’s worst inclinations, but Canadians nonetheless will suffer from them. Three, perhaps four, years from now the worst of the present crisis will have abated. Fears will have calmed. Recovery will be reality. And, the hyper-amplified political ephemera of this time will be long forgotten. Then, the Prime Minister—either Stephen Harper or you—will ask the people for a mandate in order to continue improving the lives of Canadians. The history and nature of elections, campaigns, and voters argues that the Prime Minister of that day will be re elected, likely with a majority that will endure for a decade or more. The Opposition leader’s campaign claim at that time will be that he would have led Canadians better through the crisis. Even if true, it will have insignificant resonance. The claim will truly beat hollow if you are the Opposition leader: the man who, when it mattered most, declined the call and opportunity to lead, inspire, and give Canadians hope. They will rightly ask, “If you were unwilling to help us to your full measure in the worst of times, what reason can there be to let you lead us in better times?” Animal Alliance / Environment Voters a federal registered political party

Nothing could be further from the truth. The "right" tends to be dogmatic and simplistic, while generally ignoring reality. The right is particularly adept at ignoring reality that conflicts with its dubious principles.

Absolutely right. How is anyone, any corporation, or any union going to be able to buy politicians if the public funds them? Where's the democracy in that? Give me a country where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.

What you're all forgetting is the concept of a new political party forming under the current election law. A federal political party can be formed with one person running in an election or a by-election being endorsed by 250 people. Now how does that one person who may have the best possible idea and be the best possible person to lead the country go about raising the funds necessary to run a campaign that will compete with the established parties? Can't be done. Those who think that good ideas and good people will simply rise to the top and gain support are delusional. The fact is the present system is so grotesquely anti-democratic that it makes forming new political parties or movements impossible. Had the current election finance regulatory structure been in place in 1987, there would have been no Reform Party, and, therefore, no Conservative Party today. Nor would there be any Bloc Quebecois. The House of Commons after 1993 would have been the Liberals and the NDP. I'm not an advocate of going back to the hoary old days of unlimited corporate and union financing, but the current system needs reform so that it encourages not discourages political participation. For a start, individual political donations should be increased back to the $5,200 that the Conservatives reduced to the current $1,100. As well, parties without sitting members, ought to have a more lenient fund raising regime so that they can raise the start up funds they need. After all, how can a party without MPs be corrupted to unduly influence legislation for a contributor?

I think that would be obvious, don't you think.

The Tories need more time to improve? Given the economic issues facing Canada, and Harper's myopic response to them during the campaign, can Canada afford giving Harper and the Conservatives time to learn on the job? I for one don't think so. As for corruption, the Conservatives are not angels. The Liberals have served their sentence.

In my view, you've made the cogent argument for Michael Ignatieff to vote non-confidence in Stephen Harper. After 2 1/2 to 3 years of a Liberal/NDP coalition, Harper will be gone and the Conservatives will be reduced to an extremist Reform rump. To let Harper continue as Prime Minister will result in the political scenario you suggest. From a policy standpoint, 4 years of a Conservative majority would wreck Canada: modern conservatives have shown around the world, and in Canada, they are incapable of governing effectively.

Exactly who believed this "that before the Charter of Rights Canada was ... in chaos and a banana republic"? Please tell us who the "leftists and Trudeau worshipers were. BTW, habeas corpus is not in the BNA Act. It's a matter of common law which means it is subject to parliamentary intrusion. The purpose of the Charter of Rights was to delineate a set of rights that were beyond parliamentary intrusion except by constitutional amendment.

You clearly have a poor understanding of the legal concept of "rights", particularly as it applied to British common law.

That's it? That's your entire concept of rights, Section 133 of the BNA Act? A section that only applied to the courts and the federal legislature but not to the use in any other venue? You are really stretching. Is it painful yet?

Can you muster anything but specious arguments? Canada also had a position on Apartheid and we all know-perhaps with the exception of you-how that worked out. Canada also had a position on the American hostages held by Iran and we all know-perhaps with the exception of you-how that workd out. Canada also has a position on Afghanistan and we all know-perhaps with the exception of you-how that's working out. Give my regards to your dog, perhaps he can assist you next time in composing your comments. It would be an improvement.

Almost every nation has a "dog in this fight", which is why both Harper and Ignatieff have commented on it, and taken the positions they have in favour of Israel. Some dogs just happen to be bigger and dumber and more vicious than other dogs.