Keepitsimple Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 An interesting point about the makeup of the current Parliament. If you exclude Quebec from the equation, the Conservatives hold 133 of the 233 seats - a comfortable majority. The Liberals hold 63 seats - barely one quarter. Understanding that it seems impossible to ever satisfy Quebec, no matter how hard we try, it seems that the Conservatives have a majority mandate from the rest of the country. Should they really be forced to capitulate to the opposition on every plank in their platform? A weak minority means you comprimise a lot. A stong minorty means you comprimise a little. The current make-up with a strong majority outside Quebec is about as strong a minority as you'll get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 An interesting point about the makeup of the current Parliament. If you exclude Quebec from the equation, the Conservatives hold 133 of the 233 seats - a comfortable majority. The Liberals hold 63 seats - barely one quarter. Understanding that it seems impossible to ever satisfy Quebec, no matter how hard we try, it seems that the Conservatives have a majority mandate from the rest of the country. Should they really be forced to capitulate to the opposition on every plank in their platform? A weak minority means you comprimise a lot. A stong minorty means you comprimise a little. The current make-up with a strong majority outside Quebec is about as strong a minority as you'll get. I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that the Conservatives should ignore a confidence vote if it feels that Quebec is where most of the votes come from against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that the Conservatives should ignore a confidence vote if it feels that Quebec is where most of the votes come from against? Is that how you see it, jdobbin? I didn't think 'keepitsimple' was making any legal claim about ignoring Quebec votes. What I saw was more of a moral claim that the Tories had a strong mandate from English Canada and the Liberals did not, by comparison! Legally we may have to accept the votes of separatist MP's but moral comment is fair game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Is that how you see it, jdobbin? I didn't think 'keepitsimple' was making any legal claim about ignoring Quebec votes. I'm confused about what the argument is. What I saw was more of a moral claim that the Tories had a strong mandate from English Canada and the Liberals did not, by comparison!Legally we may have to accept the votes of separatist MP's but moral comment is fair game! I didn't see the moral claim argument made. However, it does seem to single out Quebec as a target whether legal or moral. Have Conservatives completely written off that province? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) I'm confused about what the argument is.I didn't see the moral claim argument made. However, it does seem to single out Quebec as a target whether legal or moral. Have Conservatives completely written off that province? No you're not confused. It's simple. The ROC supports the Conservatives in a comfortable majority fashion - that makes their "strong minority" even stronger.....and their obligation to compromise should be viewed as very small. As for writing off the political anomoly of Quebec, the Conservatives have done more for Quebec than anyone in recent history with major concessions on the Fiscal Imbalance (which the Liberals refused to recognize) and the Quebec as a Nation within a United Canada statement.....so while Federalist parties can't seem to win many seats, we all sure spend a lot of money trying. Am I making an argument? Is there a moral claim somewhere that the Conservative "strong minority" is in some respects, a moral majority? I don't know....but as I said, it's an interesting Parliamentary make-up. Edited September 19, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 No you're not confused. It's simple. The ROC supports the Conservatives in a comfortable majority fashion - that makes their "strong minority" even stronger.....and their obligation to compromise should be viewed as very small.Uh, are you a separatist or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 No you're not confused. It's simple. The ROC supports the Conservatives in a comfortable majority fashion - that makes their "strong minority" even stronger.....and their obligation to compromise should be viewed as very small. You'll have to explain to me how. As for writing off the political anomoly of Quebec, the Conservatives have done more for Quebec than anyone in recent history with major concessions on the Fiscal Imbalance (which the Liberals refused to recognize) and the Quebec as a Nation within a United Canada statement.....so while Federalist parties can't seem to win many seats, we all sure spend a lot of money trying. Am I making an argument? Is there a moral claim somewhere that the Conservative "strong minority" is in some respects, a moral majority? I don't know....but as I said, it's an interesting Parliamentary make-up. All I see is a Bloc and an NDP that didn't want an election at this time and a Liberal party that wanted to break from having to support the government at every turn so that it could be recognized as an actual shadow government ready for the task of governing. I get pretty scared when I hear moral majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 All I see is a Bloc and an NDP that didn't want an election at this time and a Liberal party that wanted to break from having to support the government at every turn so that it could be recognized as an actual shadow government ready for the task of governing. Well, at least they've taken their first baby step towards that....but they've got a long, long way to go....but every journey begins with the first step.....so good luck to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Well, at least they've taken their first baby step towards that....but they've got a long, long way to go....but every journey begins with the first step.....so good luck to them. Just as the Tories have a long, long way to to a majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Just as the Tories have a long, long way to to a majority? 4% isn't actually that much. If they can hold their own in Quebec I think they might do it unless the liberals drop Iggy the terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Just as the Tories have a long, long way to to a majority? We go around in circles on this one. A majority would be nice but they'd have to be very lucky to have the cards all fall their way because the Bloc will hang on to almost 50 seats. A strong minority of 140 seats or more would be just fine - sort of where we are today. Having said that, an improving economy and the Olympics may very well push them into a majority. I wouldn't hold my breath but it's possible. As for Mr. Ignatieff, I think he's had a reasonable amount of time for Canadians to warm up to him but in fact, they are being turned off according to the polls. Outside of diehard. partisan Liberal voters, I really do think that more and more Canadians are seeing his arrogance and elitism - his frequent use of "I" and the terms report card and probation really don't sit that well. Trudeau pulled it off once but in general, most Canadians are Tim Horton's and Canadian Tire at heart. Keep the faith Dobbin but the longer the Conservatives are in power, the older Mr. Ignatieff gets, the more comfortable Canadians become with the Snarly Accountant, and "hidden agenda" - if not brushed aside already - will amount to a desperate hill of beans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 No you're not confused. It's simple. The ROC supports the Conservatives in a comfortable majority fashion - that makes their "strong minority" even stronger. Ummmm, no. Sorry, there's only one Canada, and Quebec is part of it. You can't take them out simply for convenience if it helps your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Ummmm, no. Sorry, there's only one Canada, and Quebec is part of it. You can't take them out simply for convenience if it helps your argument. I'm not taking them out....just offering a different perspective on the makeup of our Parliament. I was born and raised in Montreal so I am not a Quebec basher - I understand their politics as well as anyone. It's just that almost 50 seats are occupied by non-federalist MP's.....and I respect Quebecker's right to put them there. The fact remains that the Conservatives hold a clear majority of "Federalist" seats/MP's. What does that mean? Make of it what you will. That's why I started off by saying the current Parliament has an interesting make-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I don't think it means anything really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I sure as hell do. When activist judges can just decree that things are "unconstitutional", the government should also have the right to respond to that by just changing the constitution.It should not be considered a "crisis" if people want to fix that horrific mess that Trudeau foisted on us. The very fact that not all provinces even officially ratified it makes it invalid as far as I'm concerned. If you really want a "set in stone" constitution, you've got to come up with something better than what we have now. Ever notice how it seems only Conservative supporters seem to hate our Charter of Rights and FREEDOMS? I don't know what possessed Jack Layton to keep these police-staters in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Judicial activism is part of our system in some capacities since the Charter, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's harmed the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.