shoop Posted November 22, 2005 Report Posted November 22, 2005 Credit to Paul Wells. He brings up some excellent points in his column this week. He pretty much refutes every argument the Liberals are making against an election before when *they* want one. Random Paul Wells column. "No, but seriously, is it up to the opposition to set the electoral calendar?" Lysiane Gagnon sputtered in La Presse. (Reality check: sure it is, if the opposition outnumbers the government.) "And what is this absurd idea of announcing an election three months in advance?" She was referring to the NDP's offer to forestall a confidence vote if Paul Martin would agree to drop the election writ in January. Never mind that Martin himself announced an election 10 months in advance, when he said he'd drop the writ after Justice John Gomery's second and final Adscam report in February. This one is probably the biggest reason there will be an early election. So it's a bit rich to look at the current Parliament and only complain about the opposition's political games. It's like watching a baseball pitcher throw the ball and wondering why the batter insists on swinging his bat. This, incidentally, answers Martin's question about why the other parties are fussing over eight weeks' difference between his preferred timetable and theirs. For most of the extra time, Parliament wouldn't sit. Only one party would be using government jets to fly to government announcements and spend government dollars. Martin is asking for eight weeks to throw his pitches over an open plate. Quote
err Posted November 22, 2005 Report Posted November 22, 2005 Credit to Paul Wells. He brings up some excellent points in his column this week. He pretty much refutes every argument the Liberals are making against an election before when *they* want one. I really thought the next paragraph had some merit as well, so I'll post it here: The Conservatives have stubbornly refused to tell us how they would govern. It's fair to wonder whether they even know. But I think this has more to do with the near-complete absence of opposition MPs who've ever sat in government. That being the case, (the lack of political experience), it puts the neo - Conservatives on a more even footing with the NDP, who the Conservatives argue, have no experience. They are both in the same boat. But at least the NDP tell us what they would do if elected, so that makes them more trustworthy to the electorate.... Interesting article Shoop. Quote
shoop Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Posted November 22, 2005 How 'bout shoving the neo-con insult. Doesn't really fit and goes more to prove your ignorance than anything else. Where have the Conservatives made this argument to which you refer? The Federal Accountability Act is a large piece of what the Conservative's will do when in office. www.conservative.ca Oh yeah, the Web site also has links to eight other policy areas. So much for not telling you how they will govern. But thanks for coming out. That being the case, (the lack of political experience), it puts the neo - Conservatives on a more even footing with the NDP, who the Conservatives argue, have no experience. They are both in the same boat.But at least the NDP tell us what they would do if elected, so that makes them more trustworthy to the electorate.... Interesting article Shoop. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
err Posted November 22, 2005 Report Posted November 22, 2005 How 'bout shoving the neo-con insult. Doesn't really fit and goes more to prove your ignorance than anything else. neo = new. This is a "new" Conservative party... it is not the old Progressive Conservative party, as it was taken over... Evidence to this... Joe Clark says people should not vote for the new conservative party. Flora McDonald, one of Mulroneys top ministers is a card-carrying NDP, because she believes in the party, and the neo, or "new" Conservative party is not even similar to the old Progressive Conservative party. Where have the Conservatives made this argument to which you refer? It has been a Progressive Conservative argument, used in Ontario and federally for years.... Maybe you're too young to remember ... Or haven't paid attention... Quote
Minimus Maximus Posted November 22, 2005 Report Posted November 22, 2005 neo = new. This is a "new" Conservative party... it is not the old Progressive Conservative party, as it was taken over... Evidence to this... Joe Clark says people should not vote for the new conservative party. Flora McDonald, one of Mulroneys top ministers is a card-carrying NDP, because she believes in the party, and the neo, or "new" Conservative party is not even similar to the old Progressive Conservative party. It has been a Progressive Conservative argument, used in Ontario and federally for years.... Maybe you're too young to remember ... Or haven't paid attention... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems to me that you are hell bent on associating the CPC party with American neo-conservative politics. If you mean "new conservative party" then just stick with that. Quote
August1991 Posted November 22, 2005 Report Posted November 22, 2005 err, I'm going to agree with you for once and say too that Harper has not clearly stated how he will govern. Or has he, by his actions? (From the same Wells' column): Before the Tory meltdown of 1993, there were always at least a few MPs facing the government who had sat where ministers sit and could do so again. Now there aren't.But is that a reason to ensure that the opposition never gets to govern? Or an argument in favour of restoring the democratic alternation of power between parties, before this country simply forgets how to do it? In his book about Harper, William Johnson states clearly that Harper does not want to become just another federal politician who buys interest groups to get the vote à la Mulroney, or as Trudeau did.Wells' column starts by noting all the recipients of Liberal largesse. Trudeau argued that a just society required "counterweights" and then proceeded to create them. Once the federal Liberal Party realized that they had the intellectual, federalist stamp of approval to create clients, they adopted the idea with alacrity. This is what Wells was referring to. For those interested, I started a thread here about this topic. Quote
shoop Posted November 23, 2005 Author Report Posted November 23, 2005 Max, You would be right if err were here to actually have a debate. Alas, he is here to snipe at the CPC and ignore the rules of the forum. It seems to me that you are hell bent on associating the CPC party with American neo-conservative politics. If you mean "new conservative party" then just stick with that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
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.