kimmy Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 I fully understand the frustration I read about stimulous funding going to Conservative ridings. I was shocked last federal election when at an all-candidates debate, our local Conservative candidate actually used the threat that if our constituency did not have a Conservative candidate to represent us 'in government', that we'd ahve no voice! Nothing new. During the Chretien era, every Albertan heard their Liberal candidate offer this as a reason why they need a Liberal MP. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. Harper is probably the most partisan PM we've ever had. His party likewise. Before you make accusations like that perhaps you should count the number of canoe museums built with government grants in the riding of Shawinigan... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Argus Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 I fully understand the frustration I read about stimulous funding going to Conservative ridings. I was shocked last federal election when at an all-candidates debate, our local Conservative candidate actually used the threat that if our constituency did not have a Conservative candidate to represent us 'in government', that we'd ahve no voice! I wanted to challenge him on that comment, but owing to a full audience, never had the chance. I can't believe that people voted for him. Instead of questioning his implication that his party would systematically discriminate against non-Conservative ridings, we voted him in! We truly have idiots in this riding.Anyone with the most basic understanind og democracy should understand that even if party X should form a majority, all MPs ought to have equal access to the government, an equal say in teh government, and the government ought to be there to represent the entire nation, not just their ridings. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. Harper is probably the most partisan PM we've ever had. His party likewise. How old are you? Honestly? My mother was an MPs assistant in the Trudeau era, and things were no different then. The media were filled with stories of the largesse directed at Liberal ridings. And in fact, one of the tactics of the Trudeau era was to "decentralize" government, which meant moving jobs out of Ottawa and - in every single case - into Liberal ridings elsewhere. Whenever the Liberals wanted to prop up support in a remote riding they'd take jobs out of Ottawa and move them there. The result was fantastical confusion and excessive costs and dysfunction in the public service which continues to this day, but the Liberals didn't have a problem with that. Any more than Chretien did. Who can forget all the money poured into Liberal ridings during Chretien's term? Hell, Shawinigan got everything imaginable, from jobs to museums and fountains. There were roads to nowhere built in Liberal ridings in Newfoundland, and every imaginable kind of pork directed to Liberal ridings out of the helicopter fund, er, incentive fund. Now Harper does it and quelle horreur! What a shock! Who had ever heard of such a thing!? the liberals cry. He's so partisan! Blech. You people are either barely old enough to vote or you have very convenient memories. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Canoe museums? Think jobs. One of CRA's biggest tax processing centres is Shawinigan. Those jobs used to be in Ottawa. Now every time we need to hold meetings with them people have to troop off to Shawinigan for days at a time, or Jonquiere, another big tax processing centre. In fact, you can easily match all our spread out tax centres to Liberal ridings at the time they were moved there. We spent millions and tens of millions to spread those jobs across the country, and are still paying for it in all manner of problems with staff recruitment, communications, etc. Edited September 7, 2009 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 On the surface things look horrible, but underneath, situations change. You get into government and see briefs normally you aren't privy too. No one knew that a 5 billion dollar deficit was around the corner waiting for McGuinty. Oh of course they did. Even the private organizations like the CTF were saying there would be one. And the Liberals certainly knew before they started promising no tax increases, and even after they were elected. But he also said something even more telling. “I don’t recall anybody here writing about a $5.6 billion dollar deficit at the time I launched my last campaign.” Nobody except Dalton McGuinty’s finance critic, that is: “…we’re adding up the risks associated with this budget, and we’ve come to $4.2 billion, and here’s another $770 million, which gets us up to a $5-billion risk.” (Gerry Phillips, Standing Committee on Estimates, Hansard, June 3, 2003) Bob's Blog Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 If Harper believes nothing needs to be done aside from a slight tightening of the belt, I think he will face a challenge of that fact from more than just the Liberals. Maybe, but if the Liberals say otherwise then everyone is going to ask them just what they will do instead. And having Ifnatieff smile and whistle and roll his eyes from side to side aren't going to be very convincing. Large cuts? Let's hear about what you guys want to cut. I"m guessing it will involve the military as the number one hit, as has usually been the case for the Liberals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted September 7, 2009 Author Report Posted September 7, 2009 Maybe, but if the Liberals say otherwise then everyone is going to ask them just what they will do instead. And having Ifnatieff smile and whistle and roll his eyes from side to side aren't going to be very convincing. Ditto for Harper. Let's hear both talk about it. And if you believe that Ignatieff will cut one thing, what do you think Harper will cut? Quote
Machjo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 OK, maybe I'm wrong on this, and Harper isn't the most partisan PM we've ever had. I think what we need at this stage is to fill Parliament with as many independent MPs as possible. Just down the parties! One thing I could support would be the requirment that all ballots must have an empty line at the bottom where we can write the name of whom we wish. That way, if we know someone in the community who we think would do a good job, but who's just not political enough to run for office, we could still vote him in. I can't imagine the government supporting such a ballot though. Too democratic. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Nothing new. During the Chretien era, every Albertan heard their Liberal candidate offer this as a reason why they need a Liberal MP. -k That's sick. Regardless of the party, any candidate ought to be ashamed of making such a threat. As far as I'm concerned, all MPs ought to have equal access to the government, and that includes independent MPs. For candidates to make such a threat suggests that they themselves support this norm and that, if elected, they will defend that status quo. And we vote them in? We're idiots. Last election was the first time in my life that I'd handed in a blank ballot just because I was so disappointed. I'm starting to understand the absolute disillusionment among non-voters. The only way I could see us solving this problem would be something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy Maybe what we need is a Canada-wide co-alition of independent candidates all promissing that if independents can form a government, they'll introduce non-partisan democracy to the Hill. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 As for Iggy's plan though, any ideas on what his plan is? Economic growth thgough stimulous spending + paying off the debt + no tax increase = ? Honestly, the only way I can see of achieving the above is through inflation. Any other possible way of pulling this off? Unless of course he's talking of moderate stimulous funding and moderate growth, then maybe it's possible, but then he should clarify that and not lead us into believing that he's talking about the next gold rush. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Argus Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 OK, maybe I'm wrong on this, and Harper isn't the most partisan PM we've ever had. I think what we need at this stage is to fill Parliament with as many independent MPs as possible. Just down the parties! I have always had a similar thinking. Imagine the House completely filled with independants. No parties at all! But there could be severe drawbacks to such an arrangement. Presumably these ind pendant MPs will then have to vote amongst themselves to decide who will be prime minister and who will be in his or her cabinet. What alliances will form? You know there will be some. Will they be along ideological grounds, regional grounds, or both? Will we see PMs and cabinets entirely from the most populous provinces? Or even from the most populous cities? How many MPs does Toronto have, for example? Thirty? Forty? Will a completely independent House made up of men and women solely responsible to their constituents care about what happens to other areas if they can form big enough regional blocks to control parliament? I'd certainly like to try to encourage more independents, but I don't know what the drawbacks will be. It could be even more dysfunctional than what we have now. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 At very least, if the argument is that Harper is smarter, he had better show some of those smarts by addressing the issue of the deficit. We have heard a lot of talk from them that it is bad but the plan is not really clear. It is worth a debate. It is worth having an election on. No, it's not worth an election - first comes turning the economy around and clearly getting out of recession. Then comes handling the deficit. The Liberals supported the stimulus budget and spending. You know that the only reason they want it now is because it's their last chance to grasp power before everything turns rosy again for Canada - and by extension, the Conservatives. Except for the sheer arrogance of it - and the fact they are foisting it on an unwilling public - I don't really care if there's another election. I think Canadians are smart enough to see what's going on and who knows, they might just be ticked off enough that the Conservatives could pick up a few more seats. Quote Back to Basics
jdobbin Posted September 7, 2009 Author Report Posted September 7, 2009 No, it's not worth an election - first comes turning the economy around and clearly getting out of recession. Then comes handling the deficit. The Liberals supported the stimulus budget and spending. You know that the only reason they want it now is because it's their last chance to grasp power before everything turns rosy again for Canada - and by extension, the Conservatives. Except for the sheer arrogance of it - and the fact they are foisting it on an unwilling public - I don't really care if there's another election. I think Canadians are smart enough to see what's going on and who knows, they might just be ticked off enough that the Conservatives could pick up a few more seats. So, if Harper calls an election after the Olympics that will be the right time? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 So, if Harper calls an election after the Olympics that will be the right time? This is the wrong time.....and you are speculating that he would trivialize the fixed election date. You know as well as anyone that the election call of last year was the result of a unique and extraordinary time. That was the banding together of a coalition, the likes of which this country had never seen - a coalition that according to them - had lost all confidence in the government - a coalition that required the continual blessing of the Bloc to survive. A coalition that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Mr. Ignatieff became leader. A coalition led by a party with 77 seats to the Conservatives 143. Harper did the right thing.....as would have the GG. And if by some miracle, the GG had permitted the "Coalition" to form a government - do you really think Canada would have been better positioned to fight the recession - led by Stephane Dion? We averted a national disaster. So yes, I'm so very thankful that Harper called an election and no - I sincerely believe that he would not overtly call one again until the fixed date was reached.....and don't bother coming back with your poison pill. Quote Back to Basics
jdobbin Posted September 7, 2009 Author Report Posted September 7, 2009 This is the wrong time.....and you are speculating that he would trivialize the fixed election date. He already trivialized the last fixed election date. You know as well as anyone that the election call of last year was the result of a unique and extraordinary time. There was no confidence vote. Harper called it himself. That was the banding together of a coalition, the likes of which this country had never seen - a coalition that according to them - had lost all confidence in the government - a coalition that required the continual blessing of the Bloc to survive. A coalition that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Mr. Ignatieff became leader. A coalition led by a party with 77 seats to the Conservatives 143. Harper did the right thing.....as would have the GG. And if by some miracle, the GG had permitted the "Coalition" to form a government - do you really think Canada would have been better positioned to fight the recession - led by Stephane Dion? We averted a national disaster. So yes, I'm so very thankful that Harper called an election and no - I sincerely believe that he would not overtly call one again until the fixed date was reached.....and don't bother coming back with your poison pill. There was no coalition when Harper called the last election. In fact, it is hard to see what the pressing need was since the Liberals had not voted non-confidence. Quote
Machjo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 I have always had a similar thinking. Imagine the House completely filled with independants. No parties at all! But there could be severe drawbacks to such an arrangement. Presumably these ind pendant MPs will then have to vote amongst themselves to decide who will be prime minister and who will be in his or her cabinet. What alliances will form? You know there will be some. Will they be along ideological grounds, regional grounds, or both? Will we see PMs and cabinets entirely from the most populous provinces? Or even from the most populous cities? How many MPs does Toronto have, for example? Thirty? Forty? Will a completely independent House made up of men and women solely responsible to their constituents care about what happens to other areas if they can form big enough regional blocks to control parliament? I'd certainly like to try to encourage more independents, but I don't know what the drawbacks will be. It could be even more dysfunctional than what we have now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy This site presents a list of pros and cons. I still believe the pros would outweigh the cons. Also, the fact that co-alitions would likely need to be formed on a bill-by bill basis would make it somewhat more difficult to pass a new bill. Not impossible, but more difficult, meaning that there must be considerable genuine support for the bill to pass, otherwise a big enough co-alition for this bill would be difficult. Also, since it woudl take longer to get a bill through, more time would need ot be spent on it, giving it plenty of time to get polished up, take the glitches out of it, put it through major critical review before it could finally make it through. If it could survive that, then we could figure it must have considerable support to have made it through. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 And I would definitely support an empty line on all ballots giving us the freedom to write in the name of our choice. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) OK, maybe I'm wrong on this, and Harper isn't the most partisan PM we've ever had. I think what we need at this stage is to fill Parliament with as many independent MPs as possible. Just down the parties! One thing I could support would be the requirment that all ballots must have an empty line at the bottom where we can write the name of whom we wish. That way, if we know someone in the community who we think would do a good job, but who's just not political enough to run for office, we could still vote him in. I can't imagine the government supporting such a ballot though. Too democratic. I'm guessing you're too young to remember anything about the Reform Party platform. Spelled out and written down for the whole world to see was the idea that except for crucial bills all MP's should be able to vote freely, according to the wishes of the majority of their home riding constituents. The mechanism for determining that majority was never totally worked out but the idea was that the MP should be paying attention and that if he voted against those wishes there should be a mechanism for the people in the riding to force a byelection to recall their MP. More simply, the MP should be voting his constituents wishes first and his party's wishes a distant second. Contrast this with our traditional system. We have rigid party discipline right down to Bills on where to get the doughnuts for the next committee meeting! The wishes of the home riding folks be damned, our MP's vote the way the party Whip tells them! Once in a while with a very controversial issue, the Whip will take a quick nose count. If he feels it safe, he will allow an MP or two to break ranks. It then will not affect the outcome of the vote but they can afterwards point to him and say "See! We allow our MP's to vote with their conscience!" It's all a sham. Anyhow, if Reform hadn't been conquered by the old Progressive Conservative Party we might very well have achieved some democratic changes. Meanwhile, I guess we got what we asked for so why listen to anyone complaining? Edited September 7, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wilber Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 At very least, if the argument is that Harper is smarter, he had better show some of those smarts by addressing the issue of the deficit. We have heard a lot of talk from them that it is bad but the plan is not really clear. It is worth a debate. It is worth having an election on.The argument that federal spending and reno tax credit will come to an end is being scoffed at by even the experts. I doubt that it can be sustained without some financial, economic and political experts calling them on that. It's not worth having an election on. Debate it where it is supposed to be debated, in Parliament. We didn't need the last election and we don't need another one. Two elections in just over a year, the government shut down for months and 600+ million pissed away just for the agendas of federal political parties and their leaders. Smarten up. I don't believe the Liberals would cancel the tax credit either. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
madmax Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 It's not worth having an election on. Debate it where it is supposed to be debated, in Parliament. We didn't need the last election and we don't need another one. Two elections in just over a year, the government shut down for months and 600+ million pissed away just for the agendas of federal political parties and their leaders. Smarten up.I don't believe the Liberals would cancel the tax credit either. Well said. Quote
madmax Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Anyhow, if Reform hadn't been conquered by the old Progressive Conservative Party we might very well have achieved some democratic changes. Meanwhile, I guess we got what we asked for so why listen to anyone complaining? Reform wasn't conquered by the PCs. Reform was unwilling to follow through on their platformbecause of the lure of power and once power was attained there was no conviction to give up the perks of power. Thus, those things were bad if LPC/PCs were getting them, and when push came to shove the Reform Party backed down starting with BIG FAT OBSCENE GOLD PLATED PENSION PLANS. There were no PCs involved in this trek off of the holy mountain of a Reform Policy. Reformers should have said, NO we will not take this obscene pension, and when we get in power, we will make certain no one else does either. Reform through away principles for power and are not pigs at the trough. There is Little PC involved in the current Conservative party, although this is a scapegoat for those who used to vote Reform and looking for someone to blame for the turn of events. Quote
Moonbox Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Yeah the CPC is the old Reform. It's not like the PC party swallowed up the reform, it was the other way around. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Yeah the CPC is the old Reform. It's not like the PC party swallowed up the reform, it was the other way around. I'm not saying that if we thought about it long enough we couldn't think of at least one party plank from the old Blue Book that is still in the present CPC. It might take days of thinking but I'm sure we'd eventually come up with one. I'm just damned sure we couldn't come up with 3! Virtually everything we Reformers believed in seems 'down the memory hole, Winston!" Reform/Alliance may have swallowed the PC's according to the numbers but immediately after the merger it seemed that all the old PC guys got all the power positions and all the old Reformers were pushed to the side. The Blue Book principles are NEVER mentioned anymore! To me the new party looks like a clone of the old Mulroney party that I bailed from 20 years ago. If you want me to believe differently then you are going to have to SHOW me! Everything I see and everything I've experienced as a former Reform Riding Director tells me different. I'd need more than a blanket statement with zip all to back it up from you to change my mind! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jbg Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Before you make accusations like that perhaps you should count the number of canoe museums built with government grants in the riding of Shawinigan... I'm looking for a travel destination for my family. Can you recommend the most interesting canoe museum to go to? I'd prefer it be of relatively recent vintage but not too new, built say between 1993 and 2003. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Once in a while with a very controversial issue, the Whip will take a quick nose count. If he feels it safe, he will allow an MP or two to break ranks. It then will not affect the outcome of the vote but they can afterwards point to him and say "See! We allow our MP's to vote with their conscience!"It's all a sham. I live in a country where all Federal legislative votes are "free votes". I was in favor of the unwinding of party discipline, largely a side effect of the 1974 Watergate implosion of the Congressional and Executive branches as we knew them. The results have been horrific. Since every Senator or Representative can demand "member items" in exchange for supporting truly vital legislation, the deficit has ballooned. Every tax and spending bill becomes a Christmas tree for special interests. I think Reform had many good ideas, but totally unfettered free voting is not one of them. There should be some loosening of the collars perhaps but having 308 petty fiefs is not a great idea. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.