Dave_ON

Final update to this, the case was dismissed by the federal court which comes as no surprise. Followup Article. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/17/...watch-case.html As expected the constitution was cited as the reason for dismisal although not in the way I expected.

That's the problem with the CPC you can never expect ANYTHING from them that isn't in line with their own agenda unless they are threatened with being toppled. For all his bluster Harper didn't want an electoin yet because it's too early to work to his advantage. He thought he had the LPC where he wanted them and that they'd support him indefinitely until such time as he felt was the right time to call a snap election. Of course the NDP will support him now, their principles notwithstanding as they too do not want an election as polls indicate they will lose a number of seats.

That's the point Punked; they're not pushing your agenda. The conservative plan doesn't even remotely resemble what the NDP were looking for. It's quite funny that Layton decides to support the CPC now, when once again his vote doesn't matter. The Bloc has already said they'd support the CPC on the upcoming ways and means. Further he stated earlier in the article below he'd only support the CPC if they met three criteria, EI reform, (kind of got it I guess), the credit card limits issue which the CPC won't ever touch and pension protection guarantees. I guess 1 out of 3 isn't too bad right, well closer to .25 out of three considering how little EI reform they're getting compared to what they were seeking. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/03/...tion090309.html Layton also said this Suddenly Layton is OK with the direction the CPC is taking the country, which has remained fundamentally unchanged?

So then you agree that the NDP who voted against it, and are likely to vote for it now that there vote actually matters, are also flip flopping?

I concur, as I recall that's the way it was many years ago. Seems to me that's the way it was back when it was Mulroney vs. Turner. I expect Punked to post a rather indignant response to this suggestion in the very near future.

You forgot to mention show the gays the error of their ways.

Ours is not a copy of the American motto. We are vastly different countries and I think that both are representative of our respective values. On the issue of the slogan I don't believe it's the best slogan in the world, but I also think that, per usual with all things Liberal August is over parsing it. As with all things you have to take it in the context in which it was said. It was said after a long list of CPC shortfalls. It's not blaming the Canadian people in the least, but rather setting the focus on the CPC's lack of initiative, leadership and action on important national matters.

Indeed, I'm sure we'll shortly hear an announcement that 24 Sussex drive and the Trans Canada Highway are both up for auction. I just love Flahertynomics.

Well of course I wasn't suggesting someone campaign on the topic, that's simply ludicrous. The point you missed and the issue I take on the matter is the use of the word "unelected". As demonstrated to use the term "unelected" is a bald faced lie. Call it unusual, distasteful, undesirable, unpopular or perhaps even a little sneaky, but never "unelected" as that's simply not the case. You're simply repeating the same rubbish that Harper himself used when the coalition was suggested by "the other guys" this time rather than by he himself. As Molly pointed out, Harper would not hesitate to do the same if the situation were reversed. The difference is Harper is a master of changing positions and walking out of a pile of crap smelling like a rose.

Herein lies the issue and problem with the Canadian public's perception, and it would appear you suffer from the same level of ignorance as to the inner workings of our political machine that most Canadians enjoy. The fundamental flaw of your argument, which you borrowed from the CPC themselves, is the word "unelected". Are you stating that members of parliament from those three parties were in fact NOT duly elected by their constituents. We are a first past the post parliamentary democracy and as such we elect, not parties, but individual members of parliament that happen to be members of a given political party; independents notwithstanding of course. You can dislike the idea of a coalition all you want but please spare us the diatribe that they were unelected. That is flagrant misinformation and if the uninformed masses wish to swallow it hook line and sinker that's fine, but really it has no place in what is supposed to be intelligent discourse. But again that is the very flaw of your argument to begin with. It is not nitpicking to say that the MP's are elected, that is precisely what they are and that it what is embedded in the constitution. The Party system is a conventional tradition, nothing more. It was created so that like minded individuals could have their agendas pushed forward by working together. They would compromise, and find common ground all the while fundamentally representing their constituents first and foremost. The nitpicking is arguments such as "the cpc won the last election" while technically that is correct, only by convention mind you, the CPC didn't actually "win" anything. The only thing that could truly be called a "win" is a majority as again by convention and tradition only, party members never vote against the party line. The thing that most Canadians don't understand and so it would seem neither do you, is that a party is at its very core a coalition. It's a coalition of individual MP's, a coalition that technically at any time could break apart, turn on the PM, and vote against the PM. That of course is highly unlikely but it's not impossible. All that a coalition is, is a group of people or several groups of people working together to achieve a common goal. Finally do I think the LPC, NDP and BLOC coalition of last fall to have been ill conceived, why yes of course I do in this particular instance. Mostly because of who was leading it, as well as a myriad of other reasons? However, that does not mean that coalitions are illegal, unfair, unelected, coups, usurping and seditious rapscallions or a plethora of other inaccurate adjectives one could use. It's the system that our forefathers had the wisdom to put in place and it's served us and the rest of the commonwealth fairly well so far.

I doubt they'd dismiss it as frivolous. They'd likely be more inclined to cite the constitution which states an election needs to occur no more than 5 years after the previous one. As I mentioned the fixed election law didn't really change anything. It's a facade of electoral reform. The GG is not constrained by it and the PM can still request her to dissolve parliament at his whim. It failed to address the issue it was intended to address, namely calling snap elections when it's politically expedient.

Interesting update to the article which answers my earlier question about what the point of all of this is. Not that I think the fed court will rule against the CPC but if they do, $350-million is a chunk of change. I know the CPC's pockets are deep but I doubt they're that deep.

That's definitely not majority territory, especially considering the 3.1% margin for error. It's too early to tell if this is a spike or a trend, regardless the libs haven't really gone down or up, they've hovered around the 30%+ mark for the past few months.

Indeed, I always find it interesting that Mr. Harper's reforms always stop short of constitutional reform and therefore lack any real substance. Surely he is aware that he cannot unilaterally enact fundamental changes to the country without opening the constitution. Why then does he continue to promise to make changes he really can't. The better question is, why are most people gullible enough to believe the government actually has the power to make them?

Saw this article on the CBC and it caught my eye. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/08/...#socialcomments Sure it was hypocritical of Mr. Harper to call an election when it was politically expedient of him to do so; but illegal? I sincerely doubt that. Yes while in all technicality there is formally a law on the books that states elections must occur every 4 years on October 19th but that is not enshrined in the constitution and is therefore subject to repeal/being ignored by whichever party is in power. Essentially it is a sham law that was enacted to give the illusion that Mr. Harper made good on his 2006 election promise. I don't know what this group democracy watch is trying to achieve really or how the court will even rule on the matter. I suppose the point is moot these many months hence. What will they do if the court does in fact find Harper to have violated this law? For those of you who may not be aware of the situation as soon as the '08 election was called this group filed their case immediately. The court however ruled that they would not have sufficient time to hear the case prior to the election so they ruled to hear it after the fact. It has just now managed to makes its way through the red tape of our system in time for the 2009 election.

\ That's not the way our system works, a petition is useless if there is a no confidence motion. If you want to make your voice heard call your MP and let them know. It'll achieve a lot more than some internet petition that people who matter will never read.

I was nitpicking polls? Was pretty sure I was just making an observation but call it what you will. I think 42% of Canadians who want a change is a fairly significant number. 34% Don't want change also a significant number, which leaves 26% that don't care either way. Again a pretty good chunk of the public. In the end more want change then those who don't and that's the bottom line.

I would tend to agree that the double and triple credit should be done away with. I'd go a step further and say that in terms of acts of terrorism or planned terrorism you should get no credit and no parole. Terrorism is a vastly different creature then most other domestic crimes. We're talking mass murder, and one of his intended targets was CSIS headquarters which in my mind is tantamount to treason.

Thanks for the survey link. The numbers are relatively unchanged but what I found very funny is the following. In typical Canadian fashion we want change but we don't want an election. I also wouldn't count the Bloc out just yet, they're notoriously good campaigners and their numbers will likely go up.

But that's the point. Of course we can't start paying off the onetime 50 bil loan until our operating budget is back in the black. However, a return to the black in terms of operating costs does not magically make the 50 bil, plus interest, disappear overnight. It will take many years of operating in the black to pay it down. How precisely do they plan to do this? There are only two real possibilities, cut spending or raise taxes. Relying on operating surpluses is not going to be an effective means of paying down the debt. Otherwise when the next downturn comes and the next loan is required you still haven't finished paying off the last loan.

This is precisely why Harper was blowing smoke when he said we were “fine” The recession hadn’t caught up with us in October but it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that as the American Economy goes, so goes ours as they are our largest trading partner. Yet rather than campaigning on an action plan, rather than planning for the worst and hoping for the best he decides to go partisan and attempt to destroy the opposition parties. Are all parties responsible for the budget and the subsequent debt? Yes. Only the CPC is responsible for the 11th hour nature of it and as the current government of Canada only they are responsible for coming up with a solid concrete plan to reduce the deficit in the future. If they're unwilling or unable to do so then absolutely we need an election. Even though we will only get another minority over it, the only time the CPC acts is when their hand is forced to do so. I'm afraid the "we'll return to surplus sometime in the future" won't cut it. They need a concrete plan and heretofore we have nothing.

That is quite the list and one I sincerely doubt Mr. Harper will be willing to move very far on. I can't believe the NDP are still harping on credit card fees. Be that as it may I suppose we'll have to wait and see Mr. Harper himself is quite sceptical of Mr. Layton's sincerity however according to the CBC article. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/03/...ion-090309.html Also interesting to note in this article is the position the CPC seems to be aiming to put the LPC in. The Home Reno initiative which is quite popular is slotted to be voted on when parliament resumes. If the LPC is forced to vote against it, as Mr. Ignatieff stated they would at the first possible opportunity, it could potentially do some damage to them. One would think that since both the BLOC and the NDP voted against the original budget that the home reno was a part of they'd vote against this as well though I somehow doubt it.

Comparing provincial parties to their national equivelants is comparing apples to oranges. Running a province isn't the same as running a country comprised of provinces.

I would tend to agree with you on perception move on Ignatieff's part. Frankly the NDP have had a free ride this whole time and it's time they started having to deal with the repercussions of voting No when it actually matters. I also agree that the NDP will offer an olive branch but I somehow doubt Harper will accept it given their past record for voting against him. We all know that the NDP will ask for items that Harper won't be willing to give. The CPC supporters may tolerate the CPC propped up by the relatively centrist LPC but I doubt they could stomach the support of Socialists and Separatists as Harper himself so artfully put it. I could be wrong though, I guess we'll see just how principled the NDP really are. As for the BLOC no change on that front, they've always been in the game for PQ's best interests. But I'm not certain Mr. Harper is able to give enough to PQ to ensure the BLOC's continued support. Really the LPC is far closer to the CPC ideologically then either the NDP or the BLOC and I'm not sure Mr. Harper is willing to bend that far.

You answered that question with your posting on the latest EKOS poll. LPC actually went up from their stalled 30% to 32.6%. I wouldn't read too much into one poll though. Again this isn't really much movement and it's about the same as the margin of error. I do find it interesting to note however that the LPC and CPC aren't just statistically tied but are precisely tied at 32.6%.