drewski

i'll admit I'm not up to date regarding all the provisions in our Constitution, but wouldn't a NAU that many fear require some kind of Constitutional amendments or national referendum?

I worked in Alliston (plant 2 weld) for a summer, and there were plenty of clock watcher's & time fillers. staying busy during down time was just part of the job description, the bonus you got for doing it was not getting into trouble. i do remember one bonus though, we got $14 for punching in on time every day of the week.

that should just about cover the $10billion deficit two RBC and TD analysts are calling for

I would think the conservatives do if they want the votes of the people who agree with them

If the goal is to attract the support of Red Tory's who don't like Harper, I really wonder if MacKay would be the one to pick. The PC's who didn't go over to the Conservatives with MacKay are still pissed at him for going back on his agreement with David Orchard.

well that should be today. any election would be way to soon for Canadians. Though if the report this morning that a deficit of billions is on its way, Harper might be screwed either way

according to reports he's set to announce his resignation paging Mr. McKenna!

I think if its only the guys who ran last time, he would have a could chance of winning (really depends on who endorses who on the 2 and higher votes). If it was against Tobin and McKenna he wouldn't stand a chance. I think even Manley or Rock would have a good chance of beating him

that the wonderful and shitty thing about the freedom we have. whether they are there as members of the bloc, or some other party that don't openly speak of separation, fact is, these are the people they want representing them

in one regard, in chance harper calls ANOTHER election (not a great chance, but plausible), the Liberals might wanna have a new leader on board asap. Hell, if we can have an election in 36 days, why can't they elect a leader in that, or less? (assuming the party constitution allows for it) Hell, they could have a leader in place if they can delay the first sitting on Nov 12 EDIT: after looking over their Constitution, the only requirements is that upon receipt of resignation, the prez must call a meeting of the national executiove within 27 days and the vote must happen within 6 months

2.5 years was enough of a gap to keep people from getting pissed. if you're predication of early in the new year would mean less then a year between votes, far too short a period. the only advantage might come is if Dion does indeed announce he's stepping down

I think he'd feel a nasty backlash for doing that. People are sick of voting, which contributed tot he low voter turnout I think. If he has another on, people will get pissed off and some might vote liberal in spite

well there's definitely a chance. There a bunch of other old PC's so the idea is not totally outrageous as for your thread, would you restrict it realistic candidates or everybody and anybody who has the remotest chance of running, ie. dalton and danny williams?

realistically, most MP's get in because of their party connections. how many people know much about or care to see their MP? but i do agree of a local representatives because I do think there needs to be riding based accountability for those of use who do know our MP's

I think the next leader of the Liberals needs to be from out east. If somebody from Ontario, ESPECIALLY from Toronto, was picked, a lot of Canadians will stay away because see it as an Ontario focused party If somebody from Quebec is picked, a lot of people, especially Ontarian will stay away because they are sick of Quebec based leaders. As for out west, there isnt' much to pick from. Ralph Goodale is all I can come up with That leaves Atlantic Canada, and I believe there are some good contenders out there. Tobin, McKenna, hell, I wonder if they could draft Danny Williams. He likes going after Harper and is extremely popular

true, but I think a lot of people really didn't know enough. I found a lot of people I know who voted against it were generally uninformed about it.

if you'd like more info, an group in Ontario studied it and recommend we change our system to mixed member proportional (like New Zealand), standard first past the post as current, and then some MPP's from party lists to "top of" the legislature till it basically meets the popular vote as choosen by a second option on the ballot. More info and the full reports can be read http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/t...ion/default.asp

can't really blame them. back then the chances of the Liberal's winning the next (expected probably soon) election was slim to none. With the right leader now, I think they'd have a better shot at the PM'ship and might consider a run

I think a lot of people in Ontario are still smarting from the rough times experienced during Rae's premiership, which they associate with his leadership rather then then the tough economic times he inherited I personally don't like any of the contenders in the last leadership race and would like to see one of the none non-contenders, ie McKenna or Tobin, come back. As mentioned in the other thread, I'd be happye to see Charest run too but I don't think he'd necessarily have the best chance of winning an election as leader.

in New Zealand where they use MMP, the top 2 big tent parties got 41% and 39% of the vote in the last election. Going back through all the elections with MMP (every 3 years back to 1996), the top 2 parties garnered about 60% of the popular vote & the top 3 got around 75%

I think the system suggested here in Ontario, an MMP system that keeps riding based candidates and "tops" up seats from a party list is the best way. It keeps riding based accountability while ensuring parliamentary makeup matches the popular vote

sadly I think you're right

how many parties get 5% of the vote? not many. and given the general adicalness of those parties, I don't any would garner enough support to reach that mark. in this past election, the next biggest party, by popular vote, after the greens, the Canadian Heritage Party, would have needed over 660,000 people to switch their votes yesterday to reach the 5% mark (250,000 to reach 2%)

Going by history, I feel that NDP'ers are very principled in their beliefs, which can be shown from continued support even though they don't have a chance of winning, instead of bleeding off to the Liberals and trying to push their views inside a "winning" party. While I don't negate the possibility of some kind of merger, I think there are enough principled NDP'ers to make a merger improbable because they would see that they'd be outnumbered in the new party and their impact would be minimal. If there was to be some kind of unity shown between the NDP and Liberals, I think at best it would manifest itself in the form of a coalition (if they had enough seats, which they don't this time around). As for voice in parliament, they've got it now with what I believe to be their second best showing ever. If the Liberals or Bloc want to get anything past Harper, NDP is an absolute must.

I just can't see the Liberals wanting to join with the NDP and vice versa. The center of the NDP is far left of the center of the Liberals. A joining would bleed off a lot of the more right leaning Liberals essentially negating any benefit from the increased support from NDP'ers If anybody is going to unite, they will have to meet in the center, ie red tories, liberals & some of the greens, because Canada for all intents and purposes is a centrist nation. Fiscally they've moved away from the center, which has cost them dearly, and the center is where the Liberals have to get back to if they want to win.