Liberals Sit Out Most Votes of Any Party

scribblet · March 27, 2008

Too bad we don't have parliamentary truant officers - some of these Liberal MPs need detentions LOL or maybe MPs should have their pay deducted for missed time from work.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=402188

OTTAWA - Liberal MPs are casting votes in Parliament at a rate lower than the turnout of Canadian voters who made it to the ballot box in the last federal election.

By choosing to sit out confidence motions that could topple the minority government, Liberal MPs on average participated in only 64% of recorded votes in the House this parliamentary session -- just below the 64.7% of eligible voters who cast valid ballots in the 2006 general election, a Canwest News Service analysis shows.

When they did show up for votes, more often than not, the Liberals voted in line with the Harper government. More than 60% of votes by Liberals on bills, amendments and motions were in step with the Conservatives. The official Opposition supported the government on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, on its centrepiece crime bill, and on other parliamentary business, such as a bill regarding the settlement of international investment disputes.

By contrast, Bloc Quebecois MPs cast 41% of their votes with the Tories while New Democrats voted with the government only 26% of the time.

cont....

Shakeyhands · March 27, 2008

and?

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

Seems to me that those that oppose the conservative agenda would be better served by electing NDP MP's. The Liberals are useless, too afraid to challenge the government and not doing their job as the OPPOSITION.

Sean Hayward · March 27, 2008

The Liberals are so afraid of having an election that might give the Conservatives a majority that they are willing to give them a de facto majority without an election. It's a win-win for the Conservatives, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Topaz · March 27, 2008

The Liberals are so afraid of having an election that might give the Conservatives a majority that they are willing to give them a de facto majority without an election. It's a win-win for the Conservatives, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Yeah you are right, Canadians are afraid of Harper having a majority government because the way we have seen him govern, well lets say he seems alot like Bush! I don't think we should give any party a majority while we are in Afghanistan.

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

Yeah you are right, Canadians are afraid of Harper having a majority government because the way we have seen him govern, well lets say he seems alot like Bush! I don't think we should give any party a majority while we are in Afghanistan.

If we had an NDP opposition party, we probably wouldn't be in Afghanistan.

If we had more liberals in the Liberal party they would not be supporting The Conservatives ramp up of the War on Drugs, that has been such a dismal failure at detering problem drug use in the USA. Problem drug use is a health problem and until we stop treating it as a crimal problem all we are doing is adding another layer of harm to the problematic use of drugs. It is the problematic use of drugs that we want to deter, is it not?

Is there any reason for society to fight non-problematic drug use? Before you spout off the crap about there being no such thing as non problematic drug use, remember that coffee, sugar, anti-depressants, insulin, antibiotics are all drugs and can all be used quite safely. Is it right to punish people for their non problematic drug use? Should the state be able to put you in prison for having a beer because someone else is an alcoholic?

Our current system is based on 1930's hysteria about certain substances that minorities used, and has no basis in science or health. Don't you think its time that we re-examined how much regulations are necessary based on safety and harm potential? We need to re-examine the laws and using modern science, come up with regulations and truthful educations campaigns, to discourage the problematic use of drugs. People have always and will always use some drugs to alter their state of mind, it is human nature and not something the puritans can punish out of people with threats of punishment and jail. The government's responsibility should end at informing the public of potential risks of use of any substance based on facts, and modern science, not 1930's racial hysteria.

A risk scale should be created and regulations based on how much risk each substance merits. For instance very risky substances might only be available by prescription, with a doctor determining that you are informed of the dangers, and of sound mind to make the decision to still use it. This method would make it a lot easier to determine who is a "problematic" drug user and get them the help they need sooner.

I suspect that it is not the "problematic" use of drugs the conservatives are intent on stopping. They are adding to the problems of those who they claim to want to help. I think people who run the conservative party are more offended by the non-problematic use of drugs. They think that people who use drugs for pleasure are sinning, and should be punished. If they manage to sin and still be successful this offends some of the social conservative mindset.

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

Yeah you are right, Canadians are afraid of Harper having a majority government because the way we have seen him govern, well lets say he seems alot like Bush! I don't think we should give any party a majority while we are in Afghanistan.

He is nothing like Bush...Why is Bush always included in your arguments? The CPC would be consider left of Bush by any American. Canadian Conservatives have more policies in common with the democrats then the republicans.

Sean said nothing of Canadians being affraid of a conservative majority he said that Liberals were scared to call an election. Liberal does not equal what Canadians want. I am a Canadian and I definatly want nothing of what the liberal party advocates, they do not speak for me.

I like elections, I want an election as I again to have my say heard again.

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

If we had an NDP opposition party, we probably wouldn't be in Afghanistan.
If we had more liberals in the Liberal party they would not be supporting The Conservatives ramp up of the War on Drugs, that has been such a dismal failure at detering problem drug use in the USA. Problem drug use is a health problem and until we stop treating it as a crimal problem all we are doing is adding another layer of harm to the problematic use of drugs. It is the problematic use of drugs that we want to deter, is it not?

Is there any reason for society to fight non-problematic drug use? Before you spout off the crap about there being no such thing as non problematic drug use, remember that coffee, sugar, anti-depressants, insulin, antibiotics are all drugs and can all be used quite safely. Is it right to punish people for their non problematic drug use? Should the state be able to put you in prison for having a beer because someone else is an alcoholic?

Our current system is based on 1930's hysteria about certain substances that minorities used, and has no basis in science or health. Don't you think its time that we re-examined how much regulations are necessary based on safety and harm potential? We need to re-examine the laws and using modern science, come up with regulations and truthful educations campaigns, to discourage the problematic use of drugs. People have always and will always use some drugs to alter their state of mind, it is human nature and not something the puritans can punish out of people with threats of punishment and jail. The government's responsibility should end at informing the public of potential risks of use of any substance based on facts, and modern science, not 1930's racial hysteria.

A risk scale should be created and regulations based on how much risk each substance merits. For instance very risky substances might only be available by prescription, with a doctor determining that you are informed of the dangers, and of sound mind to make the decision to still use it. This method would make it a lot easier to determine who is a "problematic" drug user and get them the help they need sooner.

I suspect that it is not the "problematic" use of drugs the conservatives are intent on stopping. They are adding to the problems of those who they claim to want to help. I think people who run the conservative party are more offended by the non-problematic use of drugs. They think that people who use drugs for pleasure are sinning, and should be punished. If they manage to sin and still be successful this offends some of the social conservative mindset.

If we had an NDP offical opposition, that would mean most likely a Conservative Majority and we would still be in Afganistan. NDP Only gets 12-15% of a vote and for them to get offical opposition the liberal party would have to self destruct, and many of the liberal centerist votes would go to the conservatives.

Keep in mind that Green party polled higher then the NDP in the By-election, in a couple of the ridings.

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

If we had an NDP offical opposition, that would mean most likely a Conservative Majority and we would still be in Afganistan. NDP Only gets 12-15% of a vote and for them to get offical opposition the liberal party would have to self destruct, and many of the liberal centerist votes would go to the conservatives.
Keep in mind that Green party polled higher then the NDP in the By-election, in a couple of the ridings.

I said "if" and i wasn't suggesting the population was smart enough to elect a government that would best serve its interests. I would love to see the centre left unite under the ndp and form a government, I'm not optimistic about it, but it would serve the population well. AN NDP/Liberal coalition government might be the closest we get , but it would force the liberals to vote the way they campaign. From what i have seen the liberals campaign like socialists, but govern like conservatives. A strong showing of NDP, green and independant candidates would serve us a lot better, than more conservatives and liberals. IMO both are corrupt in the pocket of big business interests rather than in the pocket of the Canadian citizens where they belong.

MontyBurns · March 27, 2008

The poor old Liberals can't figure out where they stand on anything.

jazzer · March 27, 2008

deleted

Edited March 27, 2008 by jazzer

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

I said "if" and i wasn't suggesting the population was smart enough to elect a government that would best serve its interests. I would love to see the centre left unite under the ndp and form a government, I'm not optimistic about it, but it would serve the population well. AN NDP/Liberal coalition government might be the closest we get , but it would force the liberals to vote the way they campaign. From what i have seen the liberals campaign like socialists, but govern like conservatives. A strong showing of NDP, green and independant candidates would serve us a lot better, than more conservatives and liberals. IMO both are corrupt in the pocket of big business interests rather than in the pocket of the Canadian citizens where they belong.

Not true the CPC represents the working middle class. The Liberals represent vested interests and the NDP represents the vocal insterests.

Last I checked the NDP was and very left leaning socialist party, they are not center left.

DrGreenthumb · March 27, 2008

Not true the CPC represents the working middle class. The Liberals represent vested interests and the NDP represents the vocal insterests.
Last I checked the NDP was and very left leaning socialist party, they are not center left.

then you havn't checked in a long time, the NDP is not far left.

The CPC does not represent the working middle class unless you think the working middle class are those earning over a hundred grand a year, with no upper limit. The conservatives are the party of the very rich established wealth types who were born with a silver spoon up their ass.

The CPC is just about vested interests too, maybe different vested interests than the liberals, but not very different.

gc1765 · March 27, 2008

And if they did vote against the government, we'd hear complaints about how the Liberals wasted $300 million dollars on an unnecessary election.

Some people you just can't please...

scribblet · March 27, 2008

then you havn't checked in a long time, the NDP is not far left.
The CPC does not represent the working middle class unless you think the working middle class are those earning over a hundred grand a year, with no upper limit. The conservatives are the party of the very rich established wealth types who were born with a silver spoon up their ass.

The CPC is just invested interests too, maybe different vested interests than the liberals, but not very different.

Wrong - I sure don't fit that description, neither do any of the other members I've known for years, neither does Harper for sure. You have a twisted perception of who and what conservatives are, most of us are middle class and only want a good future for Canada and Canadians. Trudea would fit that description though LOL

scribblet · March 27, 2008

And if they did vote against the government, we'd hear complaints about how the Liberals wasted $300 million dollars on an unnecessary election.
Some people you just can't please...

Except they are not voting against the gov't, they are choosing to sit out the votes and not put their money where their mouths are. They obviously can't and are afraid to walk the talk so they just sit it out - dock their pays for non attendance !!!

Shakeyhands · March 27, 2008

Too bad we don't have parliamentary truant officers - some of these Liberal MPs need detentions LOL or maybe MPs should have their pay deducted for missed time from work.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=402188

OTTAWA - Liberal MPs are casting votes in Parliament at a rate lower than the turnout of Canadian voters who made it to the ballot box in the last federal election.

By choosing to sit out confidence motions that could topple the minority government, Liberal MPs on average participated in only 64% of recorded votes in the House this parliamentary session -- just below the 64.7% of eligible voters who cast valid ballots in the 2006 general election, a Canwest News Service analysis shows.

When they did show up for votes, more often than not, the Liberals voted in line with the Harper government. More than 60% of votes by Liberals on bills, amendments and motions were in step with the Conservatives. The official Opposition supported the government on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, on its centrepiece crime bill, and on other parliamentary business, such as a bill regarding the settlement of international investment disputes.

By contrast, Bloc Quebecois MPs cast 41% of their votes with the Tories while New Democrats voted with the government only 26% of the time.

cont....

What is the sense of going through an election when what is likely to happen is more of the same?

gc1765 · March 27, 2008

Except they are not voting against the gov't, they are choosing to sit out the votes and not put their money where their mouths are. They obviously can't and are afraid to walk the talk so they just sit it out - dock their pays for non attendance !!!

Did you read my post?

gc1765 · March 27, 2008

dock their pays for non attendance !!!

Sounds good...but should the Liberals force an early election, let's dock the $300 million cost from the pay of Conservative MPs.

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

Sounds good...but should the Liberals force an early election, let's dock the $300 million cost from the pay of Conservative MPs.

If they don't agree with the governments policies and bills then yes they should force an election, that is their responsibility as the offical opposition. IF the majority of Canadian agree with them they will vote for them in an election. IF They do not vote against the government then they should vote with the government. Those who vote for the sitting liberal MPs deserve better and need representation, and when their MP's don't vote they loose their reprenstation in the government.

Why dock the CPC Mp's THEY ARE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE SENT THERE TO DO!

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

then you havn't checked in a long time, the NDP is not far left.
The CPC does not represent the working middle class unless you think the working middle class are those earning over a hundred grand a year, with no upper limit. The conservatives are the party of the very rich established wealth types who were born with a silver spoon up their ass.

The CPC is just about vested interests too, maybe different vested interests than the liberals, but not very different.

I certainly am not earning over more then 100 grand a year, infact if you check into the pervious fund raising records before Chretien brought in the donation limits, you would have found that most of the rich corporate donors donated to the Liberal party of Canada (vested interests).

M.Dancer · March 27, 2008

then you havn't checked in a long time, the NDP is not far left.
The CPC does not represent the working middle class unless you think the working middle class are those earning over a hundred grand a year, with no upper limit. The conservatives are the party of the very rich established wealth types who were born with a silver spoon up their ass.

The CPC is just about vested interests too, maybe different vested interests than the liberals, but not very different.

That is demonstratably nonsense

jdobbin · March 27, 2008

And if they did vote against the government, we'd hear complaints about how the Liberals wasted $300 million dollars on an unnecessary election.
Some people you just can't please...

That was my thought on this whole subject.

gc1765 · March 27, 2008

If they don't agree with the governments policies and bills then yes they should force an election...

Sounds great...except for the part about it costing $300 million or so...

Why dock the CPC Mp's THEY ARE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE SENT THERE TO DO!

I don't think its their job to try and force an election by turning everything they possibly can into a confidence motion.

Sean Hayward · March 27, 2008

Sounds good...but should the Liberals force an early election, let's dock the $300 million cost from the pay of Conservative MPs.

Are you an idiot? Your logic is that if the liberals do something that you consider wrong, the conservative MPs should pay financially for it. Give me a break. You said "some people you just can't please". Sounds like you were describing yourself.