Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[capricorn]

We elect people to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are contrary to what the public wants such as the death penalty.

Wow dobbin. This sounds a lot like the Liberal Party saying "Canadians want x" or "Canadians don't want x". When the Liberals use this line, how presumptuous that they would think they speak on my behalf without knowing what I really want. Liberals seem to have trouble grasping this concept.

In terms of an election, if Parliament is not working, an election allows for people to kick out the culprits.

Sometimes the culprits are NOT thrown out but live on to govern another day.

[Topaz]

Wow dobbin. This sounds a lot like the Liberal Party saying "Canadians want x" or "Canadians don't want x". When the Liberals use this line, how presumptuous that they would think they speak on my behalf without knowing what I really want. Liberals seem to have trouble grasping this concept.

Sometimes the culprits are NOT thrown out but live on to govern another day.

I doubt Harper will remain leader though or part of the Tories/Alliance party. McKay is a TRUE conservative maybe he would be a better leader.

[jdobbin]

Wow dobbin. This sounds a lot like the Liberal Party saying "Canadians want x" or "Canadians don't want x". When the Liberals use this line, how presumptuous that they would think they speak on my behalf without knowing what I really want. Liberals seem to have trouble grasping this concept.

How presumptuous of you to think that the electorate doesn't chose people who sometimes say no to them and ultimately respect them for it.

It is obviously your view that the MPs who voted against the death penalty were not respecting the electorate? Right?

Sometimes the culprits are NOT thrown out but live on to govern another day.

Possibly because respect is often earned for voting your conscience or the fact that the electorate has moved to your position.

[capricorn]

How presumptuous of you to think that the electorate doesn't chose people who sometimes say no to them and ultimately respect them for it.

Gibberish.

It is obviously your view that the MPs who voted against the death penalty were not respecting the electorate? Right?

I wasn't speaking of how MPs voted. I was speaking about YOUR presumption in stating that the public is opposed to the death penalty. This attitude "we know what Canadians want' is endemic in the Liberal Party of which you are a rabid supporter.

Edited September 11, 2009 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

I wasn't speaking of how MPs voted. I was speaking about YOUR presumption in stating that the public is opposed to the death penalty. This attitude "we know what Canadians want' is endemic in the Liberal Party of which you are a rabid supporter.

I wasn't presuming anything. I am basing it on the polls at the time the debate on the death penalty took place. Canadians were in support of the death penalty.

Why don't you take a breath rather than personalizing?

[jdobbin]

Gibberish.

It is obvious you are losing it here or do you think that MPs should do exactly what the electorate want every time? Or do they vote for someone to look at the issues, votes accordingly and is judged for it at election time?

[capricorn]

It is obvious you are losing it here

Too funny. You accuse me of personalizing. Oh dobbin at least you're consistent.

[jdobbin]

Too funny. You accuse me of personalizing. Oh dobbin at least you're consistent.

Please. That is exactly what you are doing. What happened to you today?

I simply state that when the debate on the death penalty took place that MPs and parties went against the what the polls said the electorate wanted. I wasn't being presumptuous. I was presenting the issue as it happened.

[Wilber]

We elect people to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are contrary to what the public wants such as the death penalty.

In terms of an election, if Parliament is not working, an election allows for people to kick out the culprits.

It's interesting how both sides used the excuse that Parliament isn't working when one of them wants an election. Parliamentarians must be the only people in our society who can claim they can't do their jobs then expect to keep them after they resign. Pure BS IMO. Don't want to do your job? Well piss off then. That's my attitude.

[jdobbin]

It's interesting how both sides used the excuse that Parliament isn't working when one of them wants an election. Parliamentarians must be the only people in our society who can claim they can't do their jobs then expect to keep them after they resign. Pure BS IMO. Don't want to do your job? Well piss off then. That's my attitude.

They are doing their job. If you don't like that job, you are free to toss the culprit out.

[Wilber]

They are doing their job. If you don't like that job, you are free to toss the culprit out.

Their job is to govern, not have elections. I suggest that any party which forces an election before term should have to pay for it. There is no reason I should have to pony up 300 mil just because they want to screw around and play politics.

[Smallc]

Their job is to govern, not have elections.

No, that's the government's job. Their job is to legislate, and if they reach an impasse, they have to solve it. In our system, that either involves a new working arrangement or a dissolution.....I wasn't aware that you were paying for the entire election personally....I feel bad for you.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

Their job is to govern, not have elections. I suggest that any party which forces an election before term should have to pay for it. There is no reason I should have to pony up 300 mil just because they want to screw around and play politics.

I realize that you believe that one election means four or five years of uninterrupted governance but we have also seen repugnance for coalitions. It is a bit of a contradiction.

[Wilber]

I realize that you believe that one election means four or five years of uninterrupted governance but we have also seen repugnance for coalitions. It is a bit of a contradiction.

Majority governments who force elections before their term is up should be forced to pay double.

[Wilber]

No, that's the government's job. Their job is to legislate, and if they reach an impasse, they have to solve it. In our system, that either involves a new working arrangement or a dissolution.....I wasn't aware that you were paying for the entire election personally....I feel bad for you.

Then solve it. I am paying for the election personally, so is everyone else they are holding hostage to their own ambitions.

[g_bambino]

You seem to think that our parliamentarians would be the last people to know the government collapsing would be a bad thing and that they would do nothing about it in spite of being the only people who could. Your opinion of them is not very high. Don't you think this also paralyzes government. If they spent the same amount of time working on the country's issues as they do trying to screw each other, there is no telling what might happen.

That's not really a relevant question; we're merely talking about two different types of threat being used as leverage. Such intimidation may be an unavoidable fact of politics; the opposition needs something to empower them to hold the government accountable. An election is at least part of the democratic process; legislation and responsible government coming to a grinding halt is not.

_[+]

Edited September 12, 2009 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

We elect people to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are contrary to what the public wants such as the death penalty.

In terms of an election, if Parliament is not working, an election allows for people to kick out the culprits.

Unfortunately we can only kick out some of the culprits. How do we fire the whole dysfunctional bunch, all spoil our ballots? Then what?

[Smallc]

Then solve it. I am paying for the election personally, so is everyone else they are holding hostage to their own ambitions.

That's right...you're not paying 300M though. You're paying about 9 bucks.

[g_bambino]

No, that's the government's job. Their job is to legislate

Wilber does seem to have a very tough time accepting that fact.

[Wilber]

Wilber does seem to have a very tough time accepting that fact.

Tell you what then. If Parliament comes to an impasse and the GG thinks there is too much whining about it not working, she gives them 30 days to sort it out and if they don't, all pay and allowances stop. If they haven't sorted it out after another 30 days has passed, they can have their election but no one gets paid until the new parliament is formed. That way the electorate can recoup a small portion of what these idiots are costing it. Kind of like the real world, produce or find another line of work.

[Smallc]

That way the electorate can recoup a small portion of what these idiots are costing it.

Sounds like you're the one that doesn't put much faith in your representatives.

[Wilber]

That's right...you're not paying 300M though. You're paying about 9 bucks.

That is 9 bucks per citizen not per eligible voter or per tax payer. For many it is far more. But say they only owe me 27 bucks for unnecessary elections over the past five years as there would have been one mandatory election during that period anyway. I want it back and I want it from their pockets, not the public purse.

[Wilber]

Sounds like you're the one that doesn't put much faith in your representatives.

I judge people by their actions.

[Smallc]

Except they don't owe you anything. They're doing something that is a legitimate part of our system. It's not their fault if you don't like it.

[Wilber]

Except they don't owe you anything. They're doing something that is a legitimate part of our system. It's not their fault if you don't like it.

So I work for them. I knew it.