Rare win-win?

[Rovik]

I'd say the majority of the media seem to agree with you that Harper won and Ignatieff lost.

CP framed it as win-win but that really doesn't seem the case in the short term. We'll see if the early confidence vote in the fall that Harper granted hurts the Tories.

Layton votes no to every confidence vote. The NDP planned to blame the Liberals for an election while at the same time taking no responsibility for their own vote to bring down the government.

At some point, the uncompromising NDP are probably going to face the possibility that the election will come when they don't want it and if they stay principled, they will vote no confidence and could very well take losses.

Convoluted is going back to provincial politics dating back decades. By that meaure should we not question the CCF pacifism and leader who supported eugenics?

I doubt that a Fall confidence vote will hurt the Tories, unless the economy turns back into a tailspin or some other scandal occurs. They are pretty vulnerable now, so anything Harper can do to delay (which he has) is good in their eyes.

Now why should the NDP compromise when the Tories themselves will not compromise with the NDP. As far as I can see, the Tories have not listened to any of the NDP suggestions in regards to the economy so why could the NDP relent. In this environment, why should the NDP agree with something that is against their principles and also with a govt. who is not willing to compromise in return. In fact, if they did relent without any concessions on the Tories part, it would be like betraying your supporters. The Liberals, on the other hand, will vote in way that is most advantegeous to the party not their supporters. Therefore, they are willing to support something they are supposedly against if they believe it is for the good of the party.

You are missing the point when I mention people's reference to Rae's NDP Ontario govt. Of all the subpar provincial's govt., in the past, Tories and especially liberal's supporters will focus on Rae's govt. in an act to display all NDP govts (present and future) are going to be exactly the same as Rae's govt. I heard many lately saying that the NS NDP govt. will be exactly like rae's govt (scaremongering at it's worst.) But at the same time when a Conservative govt. wins provinically, you don't hear people say that they will act like Devine's 80s Conservative.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Rovik

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I doubt that a Fall confidence vote will hurt the Tories, unless the economy turns back into a tailspin or some other scandal occurs. They are pretty vulrable now, so anything Harper can do to delay (which he has) is good in their eyes.

Now why should the NDP compromise when the Tories themselves will not compromise with the NDP. As far as I can see, the Tories have not listened to any of the NDP suggestions in regards to the economy so why could the NDP relent. In this environment, why should the NDP agree with something that is against their principles and also with a govt. who is not willing to compromise in return. In fact, if they did relent without any concessions on the Tories part, it would be like betraying your supporters. The Liberals, on the other hand, will vote in way that is most advantegeous to the party not their supporters. Therefore, they are willing to support something they are supposedly against if they believe it is for the good of the party.

You are missing the point when I mention people's reference to Rae's NDP Ontario govt. Of all the subpar provincial's govt. in the past, tories and especially liberals supporters with focus on Rae's govt. in an act to display all NDP govts (present and future) are going to be exactly the same as Rae's govt. I heard many lately saying that the NS NDP govt. will be exactly like rae's govt (scaremongering at it's worst.) But at the same time when the Conservative govt. wins provinically, you don't hear people say that they will act like Devine's 80s Conservative.

Grant's people were caught and punished.

[jdobbin]

I doubt that a Fall confidence vote will hurt the Tories, unless the economy turns back into a tailspin or some other scandal occurs. They are pretty vulnerable now, so anything Harper can do to delay (which he has) is good in their eyes.

All fall confidence vote hurts the Tories if they thought they could go till the next budget before facing a money bill. It certainly looks like they might have been considering that.

Now why should the NDP compromise when the Tories themselves will not compromise with the NDP. As far as I can see, the Tories have not listened to any of the NDP suggestions in regards to the economy so why could the NDP relent. In this environment, why should the NDP agree with something that is against their principles and also with a govt. who is not willing to compromise in return.

We will see if Layton resists overtures from the Tories on a key issue of importance to them. If they do carry on with voting no every time, I suspect they will likely not do as well in the next election. However, at least they will say they stuck to their principles.

The Liberals, on the other hand, will vote in way that is most advantegeous to the party not their supporters. Therefore, they are willing to support something they are supposedly against if they believe it is for the good of the party.

Which is how the Liberals tend to stomp on the NDP nationally since the NDP looks very uncompromising on the federal front.

You are missing the point when I mention people's reference to Rae's NDP Ontario govt. Of all the subpar provincial's govt., in the past, Tories and especially liberal's supporters will focus on Rae's govt. in an act to display all NDP govts (present and future) are going to be exactly the same as Rae's govt. I heard many lately saying that the NS NDP govt. will be exactly like rae's govt (scaremongering at it's worst.) But at the same time when a Conservative govt. wins provinically, you don't hear people say that they will act like Devine's 80s Conservative.

I think people look at provincial records in and of themselves. Ontario has had crappy representation from all three parties over the years. The mistake is to think that it somehow translates to everything on the federal level.

[myata]

Your beef is with the "partisan system", not the representational system.

Not really. My beef is that the pseudo "choice" I'm getting is not at all the same as the choice I'm making.

That is why I suggested an independent candidate in the first place. To either remodel partisan politics into a two party system or implementing a proportional representation system is a very tall order and likely not achievable under current conditions.

Just too bad for the "conditions". My understanding of rational and common sense won't change just because somebody some X generations back set up the system this way, nor because the political elite of today thinks it's to their great disadvantage to even think of changing it.

With that in mind I suggest that you either attempt to alter the conditions or throw up your hands in disgust like so many other Canadians do. Supporting independent candidates is a viable alternative.

I'd go with the former. However, if it's not something the majority of my countrymen would be interested in, I'd be no more interested to play pointless "Harper" vs "Iggy": who'll win? spectacle / lottery / entertainment channel.

[punked]

Layton votes no to every confidence vote. The NDP planned to blame the Liberals for an election while at the same time taking no responsibility for their own vote to bring down the government.

That just isn't true. Layton can vote no on every confidence issue and not blame the Liberals for an election becuase he knows as the rest of Canada knows the Liberals will cave. Their streak with Iggy is Yes on 79 votes of confidence. Why should Jack vote yes when Iggy has such a good record to keep? If you know the sun will come up in the morning, so you say it is going too, should I blame for the sun coming up?

See this what I find funny. Liberals think that the NDP should vote yes once so the Liberals can "have their turn voting no." Well the NDP are voting against what they don't like while the Liberals vote for it becuase they are scared. Keep up the blame game. I hope Iggy says he will vote no so Harper has to give the NDP what we want for once. I like when the NDP holds the power good things happen not like when the Liberals cave and give the Cons everything they want like they have 79 times with Iggy. The NDP will play hardball and get something from the deal or we will have an election.

[jdobbin]

That just isn't true. Layton can vote no on every confidence issue and not blame the Liberals for an election becuase he knows as the rest of Canada knows the Liberals will cave. Their streak with Iggy is Yes on 79 votes of confidence. Why should Jack vote yes when Iggy has such a good record to keep? If you know the sun will come up in the morning, so you say it is going too, should I blame for the sun coming up?

Once again, I say the NDP takes no responsibility for an election. Layton does not compromise. Layton hopes the Liberals will not hold him to account for his position but that won't last forever.

I doubt very much that Layton will fare as well as he did in the last election. I doubt very much that he will get another election after this one.

See this what I find funny. Liberals think that the NDP should vote yes once so the Liberals can "have their turn voting no." Well the NDP are voting against what they don't like while the Liberals vote for it becuase they are scared. Keep up the blame game. I hope Iggy says he will vote no so Harper has to give the NDP what we want for once. I like when the NDP holds the power good things happen not like when the Liberals cave and give the Cons everything they want like they have 79 times with Iggy. The NDP will play hardball and get something from the deal or we will have an election.

If the NDP votes no sometime in the fall, they will hurt their own base. I'm sure Layton knows this. Stay principled and lose seats. Act with compromise and lose seats because your base will abandon you. Take your pick.

[punked]

Once again, I say the NDP takes no responsibility for an election. Layton does not compromise. Layton hopes the Liberals will not hold him to account for his position but that won't last forever.

I doubt very much that Layton will fare as well as he did in the last election. I doubt very much that he will get another election after this one.

If the NDP votes no sometime in the fall, they will hurt their own base. I'm sure Layton knows this. Stay principled and lose seats. Act with compromise and lose seats because your base will abandon you. Take your pick.

Unless Harper wants to compromise why should Jack give him a free ride like Iggy. This what I don't get from what Liberals say. You can't vote for something you don't agree with (unless you are Liberal). You have to force the other side to sit down and talk to you and make real meaningful compromise. This is what Jack did with Paul Martin. Otherwise what is the point of having a vote in Parliament? To prop up things you don't agree with? Is that what Liberals stand for? This is what you are saying to me.

[jdobbin]

Unless Harper wants to compromise why should Jack give him a free ride like Iggy. This what I don't get from what Liberals say. You can't vote for something you don't agree with (unless you are Liberal). You have to force the other side to sit down and talk to you and make real meaningful compromise. This is what Jack did with Paul Martin. Otherwise what is the point of having a vote in Parliament? To prop up things you don't agree with? Is that what Liberals stand for? This is what you are saying to me.

I am saying that Layton will have a hard time voting for anything that Harper proposes even if it Harper talks to Layton and introduces legislation with the exact wording Layton wants. I think Layton would find his own party attacks him as they want to vote no to everything the government does even if it puts their party in the toilet.

I've often said that Harper would rather fight than govern.

Layton would rather oppose than govern.

Layton does want meaningful compromise from the Tories. He will reject them even if they offer up the entire NDP platform.

[punked]

I am saying that Layton will have a hard time voting for anything that Harper proposes even if it Harper talks to Layton and introduces legislation with the exact wording Layton wants. I think Layton would find his own party attacks him as they want to vote no to everything the government does even if it puts their party in the toilet.

I've often said that Harper would rather fight than govern.

Layton would rather oppose than govern.

Layton does want meaningful compromise from the Tories. He will reject them even if they offer up the entire NDP platform.

There just isn't proof for this. Jack and Harper have agreed before like in native residential apologies where Harper thanked Layton for his pushing the issue. Layton has compromised in the past with the Liberals under Martin. See your problem is you are looking at this as a Liberal which means Layton can't do something becuase of the poll numbers. You have to look as an NDPer meaning Layton can do something because it is what he believes and is good for the country. If Harper sits and listens to Jack makes compromise he will vote with him. Harper wont do that though that is the biggest problem here.

You just take issue with the NDP becuase they show the Liberals for what they are. Power hungry and short on Ideas. "We will go to an election over EI..........................or not becuase we don't think we can win." Way to stand by your guns.

[jdobbin]

There just isn't proof for this. Jack and Harper have agreed before like in native residential apologies where Harper thanked Layton for his pushing the issue. Layton has compromised in the past with the Liberals under Martin. See your problem is you are looking at this as a Liberal which means Layton can't do something becuase of the poll numbers. You have to look as an NDPer meaning Layton can do something because it is what he believes and is good for the country. If Harper sits and listens to Jack makes compromise he will vote with him. Harper wont do that though that is the biggest problem here.

It wasn't legislation. Layton opposes all legislation.

I don't expect that to change.

You just take issue with the NDP becuase they show the Liberals for what they are. Power hungry and short on Ideas. "We will go to an election over EI..........................or not becuase we don't think we can win." Way to stand by your guns.

The NDP are short on ideas. Even when they are in government, they don't do much for issues they say they support such as poverty. That has been clearly demonstrated in Manitoba and is known to any who advocate for the poor.

The NDP would rather not work with any other party. Federally, they would rather oppose than govern. In Manitoba, they are devoid of ideas, light on legislation and don't even fight for their so-called main issues such as poverty.

Way to stand by your guns. At least federally, they are going to no where.

[punked]

The NDP are short on ideas.

I find this funny coming from someone who is supporting the party who stole the NDP's ideas. The Liberals big issue? EI reform? Seems like Yvon Godin has introduced countless bills on this very subject. While your party leader voted against them only to make all of Godin's ideas his big thing this year. Why is that? I mean honestly I know the Liberals are hard up for issues and Iggy isn't sure why he wants to be PM but all someone has to do is go back to look at the record to see the Liberals and Iggy had their chance many times on this issue they took from the NDP. Not only that but they are the ones who cause the problem in the first place. Maybe the polls will tell you something different in the future and you will be attacking on another front soon.

[jdobbin]

I find this funny coming from someone who is supporting the party who stole the NDP's ideas. The Liberals big issue? EI reform?

If that was the only issue I'd have a problem with the Liberals. I think the NDP's decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan immediately is what makes Layton dangerous. He would put our own troops and the lives of those they protect in danger.

Seems like Yvon Godin has introduced countless bills on this very subject. While your party leader voted against them only to make all of Godin's ideas his big thing this year. Why is that? I mean honestly I know the Liberals are hard up for issues and Iggy isn't sure why he wants to be PM but all someone has to do is go back to look at the record to see the Liberals and Iggy had their chance many times on this issue they took from the NDP. Not only that but they are the ones who cause the problem in the first place. Maybe the polls will tell you something different in the future and you will be attacking on another front soon.

I expect that if Harper adopted all the legislation lock, stock and barrel from the NDP, they would vote against it as well because they would rather oppose than see their idea used by the Tories. Layton has probably one last election in him just as Harper does. If the logjam does not clear and either of them fares worse, I expect they will step aside or be asked to step aside.

The game Layton plays is to either blame the Liberals for an election or to blame them for not going to an election. Ultimately, when an election occurs, the electorate will looks for pragmatic leadership. I don't think that Layton is that leader and even among the NDP that I have talked to, there isn't a lot of love for the man. Many in my area support Blaikie.

[punked]

If that was the only issue I'd have a problem with the Liberals. I think the NDP's decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan immediately is what makes Layton dangerous. He would put our own troops and the lives of those they protect in danger.

I can see how you think bringing our troops home would put them in danger...........wait one minute bringing them home would get them out of harms way. What odd logic you have.

I expect that if Harper adopted all the legislation lock, stock and barrel from the NDP, they would vote against it as well because they would rather oppose than see their idea used by the Tories. Layton has probably one last election in him just as Harper does. If the logjam does not clear and either of them fares worse, I expect they will step aside or be asked to step aside.

The game Layton plays is to either blame the Liberals for an election or to blame them for not going to an election. Ultimately, when an election occurs, the electorate will looks for pragmatic leadership. I don't think that Layton is that leader and even among the NDP that I have talked to, there isn't a lot of love for the man. Many in my area support Blaikie.

I voted for Blaikie when he ran against Layton I think he is great. I expect Harper to stay as long as he is winning, and don't think Iggy is going to win the next election after 79 straight voted of confidence for Harper his numbers have fallen in the lastest tracking he is lower then Harper. I think we will have a new NDP leader which is a good thing, the party will continue to exist and good things will happen because of it.

[jdobbin]

I can see how you think bringing our troops home would put them in danger...........wait one minute bringing them home would get them out of harms way. What odd logic you have.

Are you joking? The troops would be under even greater threat in retreat as most experts have indicated. I haven't even gotten into what it would do to our allies and the people we are presently helping.

I voted for Blaikie when he ran against Layton I think he is great. I expect Harper to stay as long as he is winning, and don't think Iggy is going to win the next election after 79 straight voted of confidence for Harper his numbers have fallen in the lastest tracking he is lower then Harper. I think we will have a new NDP leader which is a good thing, the party will continue to exist and good things will happen because of it.

If Harper fails to get a majority, it will be his own party that will ask him to leave.

The Liberals will target the NDP Toronto ridings. If it comes down to a two party race, the NDP will be ones likely to get squeezed at the federal level. People have never warmed to Layton.

[punked]

Are you joking? The troops would be under even greater threat in retreat as most experts have indicated. I haven't even gotten into what it would do to our allies and the people we are presently helping.

We make up 3% of troop forces in Afghanistan. Sure we would be missed but their would be much less of threat to our troops if they were home then if they are in country where they don't belong. That is just a fact.

If Harper fails to get a majority, it will be his own party that will ask him to leave.

The Liberals will target the NDP Toronto ridings. If it comes down to a two party race, the NDP will be ones likely to get squeezed at the federal level. People have never warmed to Layton.

Yah........no......Harper will be their as long as he is PM unless he choses to leave. If he loses the knives will come out but I think the Cons are happy enough Harper has kept the Liberals at bay. The NDP have two Toronto ridings Jacks and Olivias both are safe they can however hurt us in Vancouver, the Liberals don't need to steal seats from the NDP they need to steal votes. Most of the ridings weren't Liberal NDP races. They were Con Liberal, or Con NDP races.

[jdobbin]

We make up 3% of troop forces in Afghanistan. Sure we would be missed but their would be much less of threat to our troops if they were home then if they are in country where they don't belong. That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that Canada does a lot of the heavy lifting. I can see the NDP policy ending up with our troops getting killed on their way out. Seems a lot of Canadians believe that too since they favour leaving when our mandate ends instead of the NDP's first plane out of the country.

Yah........no......Harper will be their as long as he is PM unless he choses to leave. If he loses the knives will come out but I think the Cons are happy enough Harper has kept the Liberals at bay. The NDP have two Toronto ridings Jacks and Olivias both are safe they can however hurt us in Vancouver, the Liberals don't need to steal seats from the NDP they need to steal votes. Most of the ridings weren't Liberal NDP races. They were Con Liberal, or Con NDP races.

If he gets another minority, I doubt he will be free to keep his job as long as he wants.

You know, I heard the same story about Peggy Nash's riding being solid gold too. You can bet that NDP ridings will be targeted. It isn't like they have been wiped out before in Ontario.

[ba1614]

Are you joking? The troops would be under even greater threat in retreat as most experts have indicated. I haven't even gotten into what it would do to our allies and the people we are presently helping.

If Harper fails to get a majority, it will be his own party that will ask him to leave.

The Liberals will target the NDP Toronto ridings. If it comes down to a two party race, the NDP will be ones likely to get squeezed at the federal level. People have never warmed to Layton.

And they never will, he has hardly anything in common with Canadians that are grounded in reality. The few supporters he does have are very loyal in their support, but most of them are "out there" as well.

[myata]

Here we go. It only remains to be asked, do we really need a working responsible democratic representation, where our choice would actually matter (for better, and for worse)? Or just a political theatre a la "Hockey Night" would suffice, as long as there's something to get heated about (and let out steam, once in a while)?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I guess in the grand scheme of things, politics don't really matter. I mean if you view the whole package, what really transpires in life, the political side of things doesn't really hold water at all. Family, friends, work and recreation are the things that people spend the most time at and find the greatest pleasures from. Politics is merely a luxury of intellectual effort.

I have talked to a lot of people lately and there is a visible trend with them. Those who are more affluent or have a greater disposable income and they pay more attention to politics and commonly think that the subject has some relevance in their lives. The people at the opposite end of the spectrum don't even seem to vote. They don't see politics as relevant to their position at all. The average working citizen is totally frustrated with the system and is constantly losing trust in politicians in general. The average guy views government as something that costs them a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. They tend to believe that government does what it wants, not what citizens want.

With all this in mind you simply have to wonder why we bother at all?

[jdobbin]

Here we go. It only remains to be asked, do we really need a working responsible democratic representation, where our choice would actually matter (for better, and for worse)? Or just a political theatre a la "Hockey Night" would suffice, as long as there's something to get heated about (and let out steam, once in a while)?

I don't think anyone can point to a responsible democratic representation anywhere that doesn't or can't end up as a circus. Democracy is messy.

Where is the perfect system?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think anyone can point to a responsible democratic representation anywhere that doesn't or can't end up as a circus. Democracy is messy.

Where is the perfect system?

In a decentralized city state, direct democracy system.

[jdobbin]

In a decentralized city state, direct democracy system.

Still very messy. Democracy always is. You never get away from Not in my back yard, petty jealousies, greed, fear, anger and the whole gamut of human emotions that can shape business and politics.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Still very messy. Democracy always is. You never get away from Not in my back yard, petty jealousies, greed, fear, anger and the whole gamut of human emotions that can shape business and politics.

I think you may be right, politics in a democracy is always very messy. I do think that the effects can be minimized with certain steps being taken though.

[myata]

Where is the perfect system?

There was no implication of perfection, as can be deduced from "and for worse". Only the commonsense that in a truly democratic system, my democratic choice shoud matter, as it very obviosly does not under the current system. One ignores rational, thinking and freedom at the peril of (eventual) madness and paralysis.

We do not have the freedom to elect NDP or Greens or any other new party into government, period. It's simply not in the cards, out of question, completely and finally, and it is dictated by this majoritary representation system, where a party with 45% would get nearly all, while one with 20% - barely anything. A party cannot jump from 10% popularity to 30 or 40% overnight, and the system is rigged in such way that any new party will be reduced to obscurity from Day 1. Get it folks, finally: this system is made so that only two could ever, theoretically, govern: 1) "Iggy"; 2) "Harper". That is the nature and true spirit of our democracy. Like a two year old, we get to chose between an apple, and banana, banana, and apple, that's all there's.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There was no implication of perfection, as can be deduced from "and for worse". Only the commonsense that in a truly democratic system, my democratic choice shoud matter, as it very obviosly does not under the current system. One ignores rational, thinking and freedom at the peril of (eventual) madness and paralysis.

We do not have the freedom to elect NDP or Greens or any other new party into government, period. It's simply not in the cards, out of question, completely and finally, and it is dictated by this majoritary representation system, where a party with 45% would get nearly all, while one with 20% - barely anything. A party cannot jump from 10% popularity to 30 or 40% overnight, and the system is rigged in such way that any new party will be reduced to obscurity from Day 1. Get it folks, finally: this system is made so that only two could ever, theoretically, govern: 1) "Iggy"; 2) "Harper". That is the nature and true spirit of our democracy. Like a two year old, we get to chose between an apple, and banana, banana, and apple, that's all there's.

Rest assured that if the NDP or the Greens ever get 45% of the vote they will form a government. There is simply not enough support for either pa

of those two parties to form a government for the moment at least.