Harper Bombs, Bye, Bye Majority

[PIK]

I wish the election was today, it is getting to hard to watch how deserate the libs are getting, just shameful.

[Smallc]

I wish the election was today, it is getting to hard to watch how deserate the libs are getting, just shameful.

The more desperate they get, the better.

[Harry]

At least equal? I'm sorry, did I miss all of the polls showing a 50/50 split between the CPC and other parties combined?

Last poll I saw showed the CPC at 36% support I think, so basically 2/3s of Canadians don't want anything to do with Harper's policies.

[Dave_ON]

What about paying the voter to vote?

Oh and by the way if I was fined for not voting I would file a civil law suit against the government for trying to circumvent my constitutional rights.

If this has not happened in Australia it would be because they don't have any rights there.

WWWTT

Voting is a civic duty not a job. As for fining non voters, well not the greatest idea, but I doubt you'd be able to sue anyone over it, this isn't the US after all. Not to mention I'm certain it would fall under the same realm as jury duty or paying taxes, they are non optional civic duties and cannot be refused.

[WWWTT]

Voting is a civic duty not a job. As for fining non voters, well not the greatest idea, but I doubt you'd be able to sue anyone over it, this isn't the US after all. Not to mention I'm certain it would fall under the same realm as jury duty or paying taxes, they are non optional civic duties and cannot be refused.

Two bad examples to draw a cross reference to here.

First of all you are financialy compensated for jury duty.

Everyone who lives in Canada in some way recieves the benefits of public spending from tax dollars.

But keep trying,maybe you can find something I haven't.

Telling someone to vote for a candidate on the ballot can be interpreted as a form of dictatorship aswell and this would be frowned upon.

WWWTT

[Dave_ON]

Two bad examples to draw a cross reference to here.

First of all you are financialy compensated for jury duty.

It's a nominal fee you are paid, and in most cases, in Ontario at least if your trial is too short, fewer than 10 days, you only get expenses reimbursed and are still responsible for your own meals. If you have a lengthy trial then a fee does kick in. During deliberation is the only time your meals/hotel expenses are paid for.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_info.asp

Everyone who lives in Canada in some way recieves the benefits of public spending from tax dollars.

But keep trying,maybe you can find something I haven't.

Not even sure what you're referring to here or how it would apply to voting.

Telling someone to vote for a candidate on the ballot can be interpreted as a form of dictatorship aswell and this would be frowned upon.

WWWTT

Not precisely, at least no more so than telling someone they have to pay taxes, perform jury duty, or be drafted during war time, such as occurred during WWI. On a side note this was the result of a, dare I say it, coalition government. Civic duty is exactly that, duty or obligation. With freedom comes certain responsibilities that we all must abide by. I would suggest that if you don't want to vote or feel obligated to do so, that you should move to a country where it isn't an option, and therefore you won't have to worry about it.

[Keepitsimple]

Last poll I saw showed the CPC at 36% support I think, so basically 2/3s of Canadians don't want anything to do with Harper's policies.

As I said before....most Canadians will always vote for someone other than the winner. That's what happens when you have 5 choices.....and THAT is democracy! If you want more than half to vote for the winner - move to the US where they only have two parties.

[WWWTT]

Voting is a civic duty not a job. As for fining non voters, well not the greatest idea, but I doubt you'd be able to sue anyone over it, this isn't the US after all. Not to mention I'm certain it would fall under the same realm as jury duty or paying taxes, they are non optional civic duties and cannot be refused.

Are you implying that as a Canadian citizen you cannot file a civil lawsuit against any party,person,company,organization or government if you feel that your civil liberties have bein infringed upon or that you have suffered personaly or financialy?

Thats news to me.

Is there a law saying that you can not take legal action against the government?

Is it a constitutionaly sound law?

I am trying to look at your arguments from the perspective of a judge preceding over such any case and the fact that no such law that says you have to vote exists speaks volumes,such a law would be unconstitutional.

What if you are not in the country or near your riding on election day?What if you do not like any of the candidates?What if you feel that not voting in an election is a form of expressing your opinion?

Theres a lot of what ifs and in my opinion if election Canada really wanted to increase the percentage per capita visiting their local booth on election day it could be easily done with a financial compensation.

WWWTT

[Harry]

The issue that just won't go away.

Slim minority beholden to the Bloc? Harper’s been there, done that

In any current likely outcome of the May 2 vote, Mr. Ignatieff would need the support of both the NDP and the Bloc, a situation Mr. Harper decries as unstable and dangerous to the country. Mr. Harper knows what he’s talking about – after all, he was in exactly that position in his first term.

A quick refresher on modern Canadian political history: In the 2006 election, the Conservatives won a narrow victory, with 124 seats to 103 for the Liberals, 51 for the Bloc, 29 for the NDP, and one Independent.

Mathematically, that meant the Conservatives needed either support from the Official Opposition (the Liberals), or the Bloc Québécois. Any support from the NDP was irrelevant – numerically speaking – assuming the other two opposition parties voted against the government.

How did that arrangement – call it a coalition of the willing – work out in practice? The first Conservative budget passed, with the support of the Bloc. As did the 2007 budget. The budget in the spring of 2008 passed because most Liberal MPs abstained, an endorsement of sorts.

The inaugural Throne Speech actually didn’t come to a vote; it was deemed to have passed, with the support of all parties, after amendments were inserted. The second, in the fall of 2007, also passed, even though the Bloc and NDP opposed it; again, the Liberals abstained, allowing the Conservative caucus to carry the day.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/slim-minority-beholden-to-the-bloc-harpers-been-there-done-that/article1994154/

[Harry]

Never mind majority, as this is far from over, and I am now beginning to wonder which party is even going to win the most number of seats.

[Harry]

This sure does not look good, does it?

Incriminating records for the Conservatives?

Harper and deny Soudas

En point de presse à Terre-Neuve, le chef conservateur Stephen Harper a pris la défense de son directeur des communications. During a press conference in Newfoundland, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper defended his director of communications.

«Cette allégation est catégoriquement fausse», s'est contenté de répliquer M. Harper. "This allegation is categorically false," merely replicate Mr. Harper.

Quelques minutes plus tard, Dimitri Soudas a été interrogé par les médias et a affirmé n'avoir jamais ni rencontré, ni parlé avec les deux hommes d'affaires montréalais. A few minutes later, Dimitri Soudas was interviewed by the media and said he never met nor nor talked with the two Montreal businessmen. Il assure n'avoir jamais reçu aucune offre de compensation de quelque forme que ce soit dans ce dossier. It ensures that he never received any offer of compensation of any kind whatsoever in this matter. Il dit n'avoir fait que relayer la «préférence» du gouvernement pour la nomination de Robert Abdallah à la tête du Port de Montréal. He said he relayed the fact that "preference" of the government for the appointment of Robert Abdullah at the head of the Port of Montreal.

«À aucun moment, personne n'a contacté le gouvernement fédéral, ou moi, et a fait de telles insinuations. "At no time, no one has contacted the federal government, or me, and made ​​such insinuations. C'est totalement ridicule, a dit M. Soudas. This is totally ridiculous, "said Soudas. Quiconque qui veut influencer le bureau du premier ministre se frappera à une porte cadenassée.» Anyone who wants to influence the prime minister's office is hit with a padlocked door. "

«Et si j'avais reçu quoique ce soit de cet ordre, j'aurais immédiatement transféré le dossier aux autorités», at-il ajouté. "And if I had received anything of this nature, I immediately transferred the case to the authorities," he added.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberpresse.ca%2Factualites%2Felections-federales%2F201104%2F21%2F01-4392157-des-enregistrements-compromettants-pour-les-conservateurs.php&act=

[Harry]

What's going on here? Maybe Dimitri Soudas should at least step down until there has beeen an investigation.

Harper aide denies receiving kickbacks in Montreal Port Authority scandal

They discuss “compensation” for Soudas if he can “deliver something” for them on the appointment process.

“What do you see him being able to do, Soudas?” the voice identified as Accurso says.

“He’s the boss of Quebec, the real boss of Quebec,” explains the voice identified as Poulin

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/978404--harper-aide-denies-receiving-kickbacks-in-montreal-port-authority-scandal

[Harry]

Harper and his ministers need to be on the same page but they obviously are not now. Who knows what is coming next?

Minister revokes support for Tory candidate who praised terrorists

Conservative cabinet minister Peter Kent is taking his own party to task for allowing a man who hosted a television tribute to the terrorist Tamil Tigers to be a candidate in the May 2 election.

This program … is unacceptable and it flies in the face of the fact that our government listed the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organization, Mr. Kent told The Globe and Mail on Thursday, after he viewed on YouTube the Heroes Day special that Gavan Paranchothy hosted on a Tamil station.

Mr. Kent was responding to questions from The Globe after he endorsed Mr. Paranchothy in a campaign letter this week. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney endorsed the candidate in the same letter, despite Globe reports a week ago about the program, which aired last November and has been on the Internet ever since.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/minister-revokes-support-for-tory-candidate-who-praised-terrorists/article1994736/

Edited April 21, 2011 by Harry