Liberals Sit Out Most Votes of Any Party

Alta4ever · March 27, 2008

Sounds great...except for the part about it costing $300 million or so...
I don't think its their job to try and force an election by turning everything they possibly can into a confidence motion.

Treating things as confidence motions is pushing their adjenda through that is the job of the government.

300million, that is a small sacrifice for democracy, and I happly pay taxes to fund elections. I do not happily pay taxes for incusions into provincial jurisdictions, ie. Healthcare transfer payments, infrastructure transfer payments, policing transfer payments, and wealth transfer payments in general. It is up to provincial governments to fund these things. Decrease federal taxes and increase provincial taxes to pay for them.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Alta4ever

scribblet · March 28, 2008

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

I tend to agree, although this is really a game of poker all the time. It's hard to get anything done with a minority gov't and an obstructionist opposition so if the Liberals really believe what they say or mean, they'll put their money where their mouths are and get it over with.

The point really was about the MPs not doing their jobs and being invisible to the extent that it seems to be without precedent, the opposition might as well not exist.

normanchateau · March 28, 2008

He is nothing like Bush...Why is Bush always included in your arguments? Canadian Conservatives have more policies in common with the democrats then the republicans.

Some Harper actions are Bush-like, some aren't.

For example, Bush increased government spending more than any President in the history of the US. Similarly, Harper increased government spending more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Bush has imprisoned a higher percentage of Americans for drug crimes than any President in the history of the US. Harper introduced legislation a few months ago that will require mandatory six month sentences for as little as one marijuana plant:

http://mostlywater.org/six_months_jail_one...owing_marijuana

gc1765 · March 28, 2008

Treating things as confidence motions is pushing their adjenda through that is the job of the government.

But if the Liberals vote against the government, the government won't be able to push their agenda through. So by the Liberals "doing their job", the government won't be able to do it's job.

300million, that is a small sacrifice for democracy, and I happly pay taxes to fund elections.

You might not mind paying that much, but many do. All the polls I have seen suggest that the majority of Canadians do not want another election right now. That makes sense because we'd likely end up with the same result we have right now, so why waste a few hundred million dollars to end up in the same situation we are in now?

DrGreenthumb · March 28, 2008

Some Harper actions are Bush-like, some aren't.
For example, Bush increased government spending more than any President in the history of the US. Similarly, Harper increased government spending more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Bush has imprisoned a higher percentage of Americans for drug crimes than any President in the history of the US. Harper introduced legislation a few months ago that will require mandatory six month sentences for as little as one marijuana plant:

http://mostlywater.org/six_months_jail_one...owing_marijuana

Conflict of interest Clement should love THAT law, I'm sure he loves being in a position where he can help make laws tougher against natural remedies that compete with his pharma companies stock.

Allow for at least 30-50 plants for personal use and for non cash transfer(gifts) and the problems of the black market would disappear overnight.

normanchateau · March 28, 2008

Allow for at least 30-50 plants for personal use and for non cash transfer(gifts) and the problems of the black market would disappear overnight.

Rational and therefore totally inconsistent with the policies of a socially conservative government.

DrGreenthumb · March 29, 2008

Rational and therefore totally inconsistent with the policies of a socially conservative government.

Check out this link, Harper's Conservatives have refused the Emery plea deal with the states. Obviously Harper thinks that 5 years is not enough time in prison time for pot seeds.

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/u...t=3&fpart=1

Sean Hayward · March 29, 2008

Rational and therefore totally inconsistent with the policies of a socially conservative government.

"Non-cash transfer". Hmm. So we can create loopholes for the sale of drugs by allowing the seller to "give" them to the buyer and the buyer then "giving" cash to the seller. Doesn't sound rational at all to me.

Alta4ever · March 30, 2008

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!

Just like we've said all along, the liberals have never been concerned with what they say Canadians want, just when and how they are going to get back into power. They are absolutely shameless!

Liberals to assess best odds, Dion says
DANIEL LEBLANC

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

March 29, 2008 at 8:16 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Liberals will judge coming confidence votes in Parliament on their own self-interest and their shot at victory in the ensuing election, leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday.

"We will determine the timing of the election when we will have the best odds of winning," he said in an interview that will run on the French-language TVA network tomorrow.

"It's rare that the population wants an election, but we can feel it when the fruit is ripe. And at that time - it's not up to me to tell you when; it's part of the strategy that we keep close to our chest - there will be an election."

Continued.........

Edited March 30, 2008 by Alta4ever

guyser · March 30, 2008

Just like we've said all along, the liberals have never been concerned with what they say Canadians want, just when and how they are going to get back into power. They are absolutely shameless

And they differ from the other parties how?

Not one whit.

Alta4ever · March 31, 2008

And they differ from the other parties how?
Not one whit.

The CPC voted against the liberals everytime they differed in opinion in the last minority. The NDP and the Block have voted against the current government in every confidence motion in the last 1o months, even though their polling numbers have either stagmated or stopped. Right now the liberals are the only ones who have shown that they stand for nothing.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Alta4ever

jbg · March 31, 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 Canadians were alarmed by Harper's governance I'd think the LPOC would be hankering for ways to get Canada to the polls. Abstentions and one "walk out" do not signify such a desire.

WestViking · March 31, 2008

If Canadians were alarmed by Harper's governance I'd think the LPOC would be hankering for ways to get Canada to the polls. Abstentions and one "walk out" do not signify such a desire.

The Liberals have proven to be simple bullies. The idiots are coming back after the Easter break 'threatening' to turf the CPC. Again. They have no shred of credibility left.

Shakeyhands · March 31, 2008

The CPC voted against the liberals everytime they differed in opinion in the last minority. The NDP and the Block have voted against the current government in every confidence motion in the last 1o months, even though their polling numbers have either stagmated or stopped. Right now the liberals are the only ones who have shown that they stand for nothing.

Do you actually understand how this all works?

jbg · March 31, 2008

Do you actually understand how this all works?

If what you're implying is that the CPC knew that the Liberal government wouldn't come down, you're simply wrong. They came within a vote or two in May 2005 of harpooning the government and it was only the bribe craven incentives given to Stronach and Cadman's decision that saved the government.

Shakeyhands · March 31, 2008

If what you're implying is that the CPC knew that the Liberal government wouldn't come down, you're simply wrong. They came within a vote or two in May 2005 of harpooning the government and it was only the bribe craven incentives given to Stronach and Cadman's decision that saved the government.

Ah no... but thanks for playing.

BTW, if you have a single shred of proof that bribes or incentives were offered, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise what you have written is libelous.

jdobbin · March 31, 2008

BTW, if you have a single shred of proof that bribes or incentives were offered, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise what you have written is libelous.

We do know that Cadman was offered incentives for his vote as Harper as admitted the party approached the man with "financial considerations."

Ultimately, it was the RCMP investigation during the election that turned the tide. And we know how that ended up: No charges regarding a leak.

The RCMP tried to link it all to Ralph Goodale.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...rcmp_income0331

Former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli changed a press release on the force's investigation into an income-trust leak to include the name of then Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale in a disclosure that some believe undermined support for the Liberal Party during the last federal election, the chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP said Monday.
“Commissioner Zacardelli directed that a media release be prepared,” said Paul Kennedy, describing the events of Dec. 23, 2005, shortly after Mr. Zaccardelli wrote to New Democrat MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis to confirm that a criminal investigation had been started.

“This release was amended upon Commissioner Zaccardelli's direction to include the name of Mr. Goodale," he said.

Mr. Kennedy also said, however, that there was no evidence that Mr. Zaccardelli was politically motivated in doing so.

Of course, Zaccardelli refused to be interviewed by the Complaints Commissioner so we have no idea what his motivations were.

Edited March 31, 2008 by jdobbin

DrGreenthumb · March 31, 2008

If what you're implying is that the CPC knew that the Liberal government wouldn't come down, you're simply wrong. They came within a vote or two in May 2005 of harpooning the government and it was only the bribe craven incentives given to Stronach and Cadman's decision that saved the government.

Cadman? I thought the conservatives would rather not talk about Cadman?

capricorn · March 31, 2008

Cadman? I thought the conservatives would rather not talk about Cadman?

Cadman is passe. The faux scandal du jour is now Brenda Martin.

Alta4ever · March 31, 2008

Do you actually understand how this all works?

I understand very much how this works. Do you?

Shakeyhands · March 31, 2008

I understand very much how this works. Do you?

Yes I do, but from your inane post it seems as though you don't. The Liberals want power? No more than any of the other parties, thats what its all about friend, having the power to pass your agenda.

Alta4ever · March 31, 2008

Yes I do, but from your inane post it seems as though you don't. The Liberals want power? No more than any of the other parties, thats what its all about friend, having the power to pass your agenda.

What my post was pointing out that the liberals are scared to stand against the government because they know they will not survive an election, they are underminding there support by not voting, they won't even stand up for their principles. Every time Dion draws a line in the sand on an issue, the conservatives cross it, and the liberals back pedel. If they had backbone, they would vote against the conservatives and show their supporters that they do stand for something. But it seens they are quite happy to sit on their hands, sell out their supporters and hope that the CPC will stumble so they can again sit in office and pork barrell.

Alta4ever · March 31, 2008

Yes I do, but from your inane post it seems as though you don't. The Liberals want power? No more than any of the other parties, thats what its all about friend, having the power to pass your agenda.

Jack Layton doesn't have the power to pass any agenda, but he has been far more successful than the Libs, and has far fewer numbers.

As an opposition party the NDP deservers a little credit for actually doing their jobs, unlike those Liberals.

Politics isn't about having the power to pass you agenda, its about the art of the possible, and you have create the possible not wait for it to fall in your lap.

So you get you message out, you stand behind your principles, and you try to sway support from the general public, by out manoeuvring your competitors.

jdobbin · March 31, 2008

So you get you message out, you stand behind your principles, and you try to sway support from the general public, by out manoeuvring your competitors.

The Liberals survived 18 confidence votes because the Tories under Harper had many of the MPs were absent on the day the vote was called. They were doing their jobs?

Edited March 31, 2008 by jdobbin

Alta4ever · March 31, 2008

The Liberals survived 18 confidence votes because the Tories under Harper many of the MPs were absent on the day the vote was called. They were doing their jobs?

How many MPs and what days, on what confidence matters?