Things about the Tory government which disappoint me.

[Wild Bill]

That is one of the stupidest arguments i've ever read in these forums and I've read the ones in support of pot prohibition!!

Of course the opposition is going to wait till they think they have the support of the electorate to bring down the government, what would be the point otherwise?? If they are going to turf the government that the people elected(even if the people picked one as crappy as the conservative party) They should only do so if they believe that the voters are pissed off enough at the government that they want them turfed. If the opposition doesn't feel that enough has changed since the last election for the voters to change the government, they should do their jobs and try to make things work. The voters have spoken. Harper should do the same Canadians gave him a minority and that is all he will ever be able to get. The fixed election dates is his own governments law and now he finds a "loophole" for himself, oooh surprise surprise. Justt like the conservative "loophole" they are claiming in the in, out scam. It really just means what we already know. The conservatives can make all the laws they want for other people, because they consider themselves "above the law". The rich always buy their way out of trouble, or have enough lawyers to basically find a way around it. Meanwhile the rest of us are expected to follow every law they set out for us. I guess when they make the rules for us Canadians they don't worry about it at all knowing the law doesn't really apply to all of us equally.

He wants to have an election before all the dirt comes out on his party. I really sincerely hope enough Canadians come to their senses and at the very least change parliament to a Liberal minority. Truth be told I'd far rather see Layton as prime minister, but i'll take Dion over Harper ANY day. Hell I'd take a daily kick in the balls over Harper as prime minister.

Well, I have a few problems with YOUR argument! You seem to be saying that 'fixed election dates is the law - Harper's own law! He should not have the power to bring down his own government. However, it would be okay for the OPPOSITION to force an early election! Why

Why? 'Cuz Harper is a bad man and I don't like him!"

When you said "I guess when they make the rules for us Canadians they don't worry about it at all knowing the law doesn't really apply to all of us equally." you included everybody BUT Harper!

Oh well, I guess if he's a "bad man" then of course he should not have equal treatment under the law...

[Topaz]

Harper now says the election day law doesn't apply to him because its only for majority governments!! Harper is picking up GW's bad habits of doing what HE wants again.

[Argus]

Harper now says the election day law doesn't apply to him because its only for majority governments!! Harper is picking up GW's bad habits of doing what HE wants again.

And Martin/Chretien/Mulroney/Trudeau never did THAT!

Of course not.

[Wilber]

That is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever read in these forums and I've read the ones in support of pot prohibition!!

Nothing stupid about it if you understand that it is about politics and not the public. Fact is, the opposition is no more committed to a fixed election date than Harper is at the moment, so for all practical purposes there is no such thing as a fixed date.

[Wilber]

Harper now says the election day law doesn't apply to him because its only for majority governments!! Harper is picking up GW's bad habits of doing what HE wants again.

Come on Topaz. One of the most glaring examples of political opportunism was Chretien calling an election right after Day was chosen leader of the opposition. The politician in him smelled blood so he promptly threw all his responsibilities as head of government out the window and went after it. A smart political move but totally self centered.

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, I have a few problems with YOUR argument! You seem to be saying that 'fixed election dates is the law - Harper's own law! He should not have the power to bring down his own government. However, it would be okay for the OPPOSITION to force an early election! Why

Because that is how a MINORITY government is supposed to work you twit! If the ruling party wants an election then they have to put forward a confidence motion that will cause the opposition to vote non-confidence. The people give one party only a minority because they don't fully trust them and the opposition is supposed to bring them down if they try to do something that the they(THE OPPOSITION) believe the people would be against. Its true that Dion has not been doing his job in parliament of opposing Harper, I would have liked an election months ago. But Harper can't say he can't make parliament work when the opposition IS letting bills pass. He passed a law for fixed election dates, now that law has become inconvenient to him because he wants to go to the polls before the people learn the details of his election fraud. It is the oppositions prerogitive to bring down a minority government, not the ruling party's. It makes no difference that this is a minority government, the ruling party is not supposed to call an election until the fixed date. If nothing else this definitely violates the spirit of the law. More rich assholes who find loopholes in the law to excuse their own behavior while expecting the rest of us to obey their orders, no questions asked.

[HisSelf]

The judiciary, legal community and the politicians have seven of the eight positions on the committee. Law enforcement has one. What are you babbling about?

In the financial community, a 12.5 percent return would be considered a damned good year.

[HisSelf]

The problem is not the police, whether it be the OPP, the Statis or the KGB. The problem is those who control the police.

And how did Putin get to be so powerful? The police become a power unto themselves in police states.

Why should unelected party hacks get to second judge what parliament has done? And I'm talking about judges as much as the senate. You don't get to be a judge without a lot of political brown-nosing. Some of our judges are ex-MPs and candidates who failed to get elected, for example, and were given judges seats as payoffs. Others are party loyalists, or party fund-raisers, or political activists.

How many political hacks end up as judges? Name names here, please. And especially regarding the Supreme Court.

Are you for real? Quality of thought, wisdom, intelligence, knowledge of law: these are all quiet unimportant in the selection of judges in Canada. It's who you know that matters, and nothing more.

The problem is police talk to local police boards, while judges are appointed at a different level. As a group which interacts daily with the judiciary they probably know better than anyone else which judges are complete morons and which judges are capable, and thus what to look for in prospective judges.

It doesn't sound to me as though you know any more about the Politiburo or Tammany Hall than you do about the selection of Canadian judges. However, I wouldn't mind a broad selection of Canadians getting to sit in on and select judges.

The politburo and Tammany are/were run by a committee of special interests who controlled the police and the judiciary. You place entirely too much faith in the intelligence of the police. I give you Craig Bromell. Would you want a guy like that picking our judges? How about Julian Fantino?

[Wilber]

Because that is how a MINORITY government is supposed to work you twit! If the ruling party wants an election then they have to put forward a confidence motion that will cause the opposition to vote non-confidence.

Since when? There is no rule that that this is the way it is supposed to work. It is usually the way it works because it is the only time the opposition can actually force an election.

The people give one party only a minority because they don't fully trust them and the opposition is supposed to bring them down if they try to do something that the they(THE OPPOSITION) believe the people would be against.

And why shouldn't a minority government go by the same principle to extend its mandate. Better yet, lets do away with elections altogether and just rely on polls to form a government. For all your carping, I haven't heard one word from you that says you are in favour of a fixed election date, just that only the government should be bound by one.

My choice is still October 09. Will you, bk59 or dobbin say the same or will you keep your options open?

[jdobbin]

My choice is still October 09. Will you, bk59 or dobbin say the same or will you keep your options open?

How did I get into this? I don't believe in fixed elections. I don't think they work with our system of government but Harper seemed convinced of it when he introduced the law. Whenever I said Harper would call an election himself, I was ridiculed here though the rules clearly allowed him to do so whether it was a majority or minority.

As far as I'm concerned, there is already a fixed election timeframe of a maximum of five years. The government or the Opposition should be able to call an election or force an election if they have lost confidence in the ability to get things done.

My criticism of Harper is that he is going through contortions now to give reasons for the election that ring fairly hollow given his stand on fixed elections in the past.

Edited August 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

How did I get into this? I don't believe in fixed elections. I don't think they work with our system of government but Harper seemed convinced of it when he introduced the law. Whenever I said Harper would call an election himself, I was ridiculed here even though the rules clearly allowed him to do so whether it was a majority or minority.

As far as I'm concerned, there is already a fixed election timeframe of a maximum of five years. The government or the Opposition should be able to call an election or force an election if they have lost confidence in the ability to get things done.

My criticism of Harper is that he is going through contortions now to give reasons for the election that ring fairly hollow given his stand on fixed elections in the past.

"Because that is how a MINORITY government is supposed to work you twit!"

Jdobbin, remember what I said about these threads getting more civilized? I take it back! We're losing.

[normanchateau]

The PC party was the result of a merger between the Progressive party and the Conservative Party, but over the years the Progressives had come to dominate, and eventually took over the party entirely. There simply were no conservative policies advocated by the old PC party. People called them tories out of habit, but there was nothing conservative about them.

That's right. The PCs were neither fiscal conservatives nor social conservatives.

By contrast, CPC under Harper are merely not fiscal conservatives. Here's an excerpt from today's Vancouver Sun:

In a news release last Friday, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation accused Flaherty of going on "a spending binge." It noted Ottawa's June expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent.

The federation recalled that, in the first three months of the fiscal year, program spending was up by 8.4 per cent. This, when the current budget is calling for annual spending growth of no more than 3.4 per cent.

"Many Canadians were encouraged by the Conservatives' apparent new restraint shown in their third budget that limited spending growth," remarked John Williamson, federation director.

"Well, so much for that. In the first three months, spending is instead up two-and-a-half times what these so-called fiscally responsible Conservatives in Ottawa budgeted it to be."

Williamson says he no longer has confidence in the Harper government's pledge to limit spending growth to 3.4 per cent: "They've proven throughout their term in office that they can't stop themselves from spending."

If history is anything to go by, he has a point. The Conservatives' 2006-07 budget pegged federal spending growth at 5.4 per cent. It came in at 7.5 per cent.

The 2007-08 budget plan announced a 5.6-per-cent hike. It came in at 6.9 per cent.

Source:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...c0-4fffb4e7e842

What a shame that Harper has chosen to follow the discredited economic policies of Brian Mulroney rather than Preston Manning.

[Argus]

That's right. The PCs were neither fiscal conservatives nor social conservatives.

By contrast, CPC under Harper are merely not fiscal conservatives. Here's an excerpt from today's Vancouver Sun:

In a news release last Friday, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation accused Flaherty of going on "a spending binge." It noted Ottawa's June expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent.

I'm not happy about it but that's the political reality of life approaching an election. All parties do the same. Minority government is all about currying favour with groups of people the entire time. Because if your poll numbers fall the opposition will pounce on you immediately and you'll be into an election.

[normanchateau]

I'm not happy about it but that's the political reality of life approaching an election.

I agree that all parties do this as an election approaches but Harper was a big spender from day one. Look at his 2006 budget. Look at his 2007 budget. Surely every act of reckless spending can't be attributed to a minority government. Each of the Stephen Harper budgets have far exceeded the budget of the minority Paul Martin government.

[bk59]

Well, I have a few problems with YOUR argument! You seem to be saying that 'fixed election dates is the law - Harper's own law! He should not have the power to bring down his own government. However, it would be okay for the OPPOSITION to force an early election! Why

The answer to your question is very simple: Harper passed a law for fixed election dates that still allowed opposition parties to vote no confidence in the government. He is now making up reasons to get around that position so that he can force an election. Why is it that when he passed the law for fixed election dates there was no mention of a minority government being "different"?

People on here seem to be arguing that it is OK for Harper to avoid the fixed date because the opposition parties might vote no confidence. But Harper himself has already shown that argument to be invalid by supporting fixed election dates while also saying that the opposition parties could vote no confidence. It was acceptable in 2006, but in 2008 Harper has found that position inconvenient.

[bk59]

And Martin/Chretien/Mulroney/Trudeau never did THAT!

None of those Prime Ministers passed a law for fixed election dates. The issue is not whether or not a Prime Minister should have the right to force an election. The issue is that Harper gave up that right and now is flip flopping in order to get that right back. If he doesn't want a fixed election date then let him repeal his own law.

[bk59]

Fact is, the opposition is no more committed to a fixed election date than Harper is at the moment, so for all practical purposes there is no such thing as a fixed date.

2006: Harper committed to a fixed election date. Harper specifically acknowledged that an election could be triggered by a vote of no confidence.

2008: All of a sudden minority governments are "different" and Harper finds that fixed election dates no longer matter.

When they talk about voting no confidence in the government the opposition parties are doing exactly what they are allowed to do, and they are doing exactly what Harper said they could do under his fixed election date legislation. Nothing that the opposition parties are doing changes the fact that Harper has reversed his position simply because he finds it politically convenient to do so. Which is what he claimed his fixed election date legislation was to prevent.

[bk59]

For all your carping, I haven't heard one word from you that says you are in favour of a fixed election date, just that only the government should be bound by one.

One does not have to support or oppose fixed election dates in order to point out that Harper has reversed his position on this issue. What is ironic is that he has reversed his position because of political convenience which is what fixed election dates were supposed to help eliminate.

My choice is still October 09. Will you, bk59 or dobbin say the same or will you keep your options open?

What does it matter when I want an election? Will my choice of date somehow change history and make Harper's position in 2006 match his 2008 position?

[Wilber]

One does not have to support or oppose fixed election dates in order to point out that Harper has reversed his position on this issue. What is ironic is that he has reversed his position because of political convenience which is what fixed election dates were supposed to help eliminate.

One can point it out and if it resonates with some people, so be it. If the opposition can change its mind according to personal convenience, why can't the government? Having said that, I think that Harper committing to a fixed date while only having a minority wasn't the brightest thing he has ever done. It's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time but wasn't really practical.

What does it matter when I want an election? Will my choice of date somehow change history and make Harper's position in 2006 match his 2008 position?

Of course not but you either believe in fixed dates or you don't. If you don't, why get upset if Harper has decided to agree with you.

[Argus]

None of those Prime Ministers passed a law for fixed election dates.

Stop prevaricating. It's not impressive. All of those prime ministers went against policy whenever they saw an advantage in doing so, and bowed to political realities on any number of issues.

The issue is not whether or not a Prime Minister should have the right to force an election. The issue is that Harper gave up that right and now is flip flopping in order to get that right back. If he doesn't want a fixed election date then let him repeal his own law.

I don't see it as an issue. Things were unfair before. The set election dates made them fairer - but not in a minority situation. The BQ have said for some time they will introduce a non-confidence motion on the first day of parliament. They and the NDP have been ready to bring the government down for a year now. Only the Liberals have hesitated, watching the polls, waiting for their opportunity. I don't think that Harper is honour bound to wait until Dion decides its best for the Liberals to bring down the government. Now if Dion was to promise not to bring down the government until the fixed election date then I'd agree that Harper should wait. But Dion won't even return Harper's phone calls.

[Bryan]

What next - adding clergymen, providing they are not of liberal bent, to each committee?

I would strongly support that.

[Bryan]

2006: Harper committed to a fixed election date. Harper specifically acknowledged that an election could be triggered by a vote of no confidence.

2008: All of a sudden minority governments are "different" and Harper finds that fixed election dates no longer matter.

Minorities ARE different. Fixed election dates only have relevance if the government cannot be defeated before the set election. Unless you are in favor of minorities being given 51% of all votes in the house anyway, you have no legitimate complaint here.

[bk59]

If the opposition can change its mind according to personal convenience, why can't the government?

And this is the part that I find so amusing. When another party, let's say the Liberals, change position like this there are certain people, including people here on this forum, who scream and moan about how they can't be trusted, how they are corrupt liars. But when Harper and the Conservatives do this the answer seems to be "no big deal, everyone does it" or "they're just being practical". How people rationalize the double standard is amazing.

I think that Harper committing to a fixed date while only having a minority wasn't the brightest thing he has ever done. It's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time but wasn't really practical.

It definitely wasn't a bright thing to do, that we can agree on. There really was nothing practical at all about putting in a new fixed date when we already had a fixed date of five years.

Of course not but you either believe in fixed dates or you don't. If you don't, why get upset if Harper has decided to agree with you.

That is not why I posted here. I am disappointed that after all of Harper's talk about being open, accountable and transparent, about his desire to reduce the political maneuvering that surrounds election calls, in the end Harper is doing the exact same thing that he used to complain about. He's now thinking about calling an election because he thinks it is convenient. All his talk was just that - talk with no action.

Stop prevaricating. It's not impressive. All of those prime ministers went against policy whenever they saw an advantage in doing so, and bowed to political realities on any number of issues.

There was nothing evasive about my answer at all.

But thank you for also proving the point I just made. To you, when Harper sees an advantage to reversing his position it is just "reality" and no big deal since everyone else does it. Tell me, is that how you feel about reversals from other parties?

I don't think that Harper is honour bound to wait until Dion decides its best for the Liberals to bring down the government. Now if Dion was to promise not to bring down the government until the fixed election date then I'd agree that Harper should wait. But Dion won't even return Harper's phone calls.

Harper committed to a fixed election date knowing and even publicly saying that the opposition parties could vote no confidence at any time. Nothing has changed in that respect. Your point above would be relevant if Harper had not already agreed to do exactly what you are saying he does not have to agree to do.

Minorities ARE different. Fixed election dates only have relevance if the government cannot be defeated before the set election. Unless you are in favor of minorities being given 51% of all votes in the house anyway, you have no legitimate complaint here.

Whether minority Parliaments are different or not does not matter. The complaint is that Harper agreed to this situation: fixed elections in a minority government. He has now changed his mind because it is politically convenient for him to do so. If fixed election dates are only relevant in a majority Parliament then you need to ask Harper why it was that he agreed to fixed dates irrespective of the type of Parliament.

[Wilber]

And this is the part that I find so amusing. When another party, let's say the Liberals, change position like this there are certain people, including people here on this forum, who scream and moan about how they can't be trusted, how they are corrupt liars. But when Harper and the Conservatives do this the answer seems to be "no big deal, everyone does it" or "they're just being practical". How people rationalize the double standard is amazing.

Of course, double standards or the accusation of them are a large part of what politics are all about. Don't be so sanctimonious.

It definitely wasn't a bright thing to do, that we can agree on. There really was nothing practical at all about putting in a new fixed date when we already had a fixed date of five years.

Which is never adhered to unless a party knows they are going to get creamed in the next election and want to hang on to power till the last possible second.

That is not why I posted here. I am disappointed that after all of Harper's talk about being open, accountable and transparent, about his desire to reduce the political maneuvering that surrounds election calls, in the end Harper is doing the exact same thing that he used to complain about.

Maybe so, maybe not but you still won't say if you would commit to Octobert 2009 as the next date.

[capricorn]

Regarding Harper saying he expects another minority government situation here's a thought. Supposing he had said he thinks his party is on its way to win a majority how would Canadians react, especially the large number of undecided? Perhaps a lot would not vote for the Conservatives expressly for the purpose of not electing a Conservative majority. By saying he expects a minority, either Conservative or Liberal, this may entice more voters to vote Conservative thereby improving Harper's chance at a majority or a heftier minority. Sort of reverse psychology. Would you put it past him given his reputation as a chess player and tactician?