Liberal, Npd And Block Going To Bring Down The Gov

[calgarydave]

DID YOU KNOW: The government of Sweden is a coalition of centrist and right-wing parties that is led by the Moderate Party with 97 seats - even though the Social Democratic Party has the most seats in the riksdag (130 seats). Undemocratic, or normal coalition government?

 

I dont think that it's a fair comparison. Sweden has a proportional representation system, and such systems lend themselves a lot more to minority governments.

 

TBH I'm not sure where I stand on this, I DONT like the Liberals an NDP, I dont think that Dion would make a good PM in anyways shapre or form.

But the reality of the fact is that coalition governments tend to better repersent the will of the people. They are forced to work together as opposed to doing whatever the fuck they want.

 

What I am very worried about this coalition is that they are giving way WAY too much power to a separatist party. Whats going to happen when the coalition tries to put through it's first confidence vote, and the Bloc says "... ya we're going to vote against you unless you give us more". We'd be giving the Bloc a giant stick to beat Harper with, but they could easily turn around and beat the country with it afterwards...

 

Regardless of what happens, its going to be interesting to see what happens in the coming months.

 

OH and all this BS would be a lot less worrysome if we just had a freaking elected Senate.

[Bizud]

If 60% of people voted against Harper, then by the same logic 75% of people voted against Dion and 80% of people voted against Layton.

 

Harper should have known better than to have tried to modify campaign funding with a minority government, and he probably should have at least budgeted a token economic stimulus package (as much as I don't think one was required). However, that doesn't excuse Dion, Layton, and Duceppe from taking an action that will grievously destabilize Canada politically and economically, especially in this fragile economic climate.

 

Except you can pretty much draw a line separating the Conservatives on one side and the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens on the other, on almost every issue. And you don't vote for leaders, you vote for MPs. More anti-Conservatives than Conservatives means the Conservatives shouldn't expect to get to govern. I've been wanting this for the last two years.

 

I don't get how people can find this audacious at all. This is fucking politics, you play to win and if you can team up and your side has more seats than the other, why the heck wouldn't/shouldn't you.

[Moonlight_Graham]

So we form the triforce and take down Ganondorf?

 

AWESOME

 

Ya, but the Tri-force of diarrhea.

 

Also, I have no problem with the idea of a coalition gov't if there is massive corruption or mismanagement etc., but the Cons have only been in power for what, 2 weeks? Since the Cons backed down from their political funding & union striking ban promises, i don't see any need for the Cons to be taken down.

 

IMO the 3 dopes have been working on this in some form since the end of last election & have been waiting for their 1st legit opportunity to take Harper down. Its a total power-grab. Harper is much to blame also though, since he has been baiting the opposition parties with ridiculas motions (such as those mentioned) & has been acting like he's governing as a majority leader.

 

All 4 leaders are douchebags.

[calgarydave]

Except you can pretty much draw a line separating the Conservatives on one side and the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens on the other, on almost every issue.

 

Thats a fallacy. There are distinct difference's between all the party's.

 

Blocs really only platform issue, is "Get as much for Quebec and threaten to break up the country"

 

Liberals and the Green, agreed on environmental issues (eg carbon tax) but not on the extent of tax. Greens would shut down oil sands, liberal wouldn't.

Fiscally the Greens tend to be more similar to the Tories than the Liberals and NDP.

Under the NDP, despite having just been laid off from my job, I'm still a "rich Canadian" Liberals tend to be more reasonable when it comes to taxation.

 

Heck the only thing the parties really agree on is "Lets all screw Harper"

 

More anti-Conservatives than Conservatives means the Conservatives shouldn't expect to get to govern.

 

Again just like Ravenous Yam pointed out, if you take being Anti one party, as you voted for another party there are far more Anti-Liberals than Anti-Tories,

far far more Anti-NDP than Anti-Tories

FAR FAR FAR more Anti-bloc than Anti-Tories

 

This issue really goes back to what was said during the election. Both the Liberals and NDP both stated that in the event of a Tory minority government they WOULD NOT form a coalition with the Bloc, and they're going against that now.

If Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion had stood up and said "YES we will seek the support of the Bloc to form a coalition gov" The election results would have been quite different I expect.

 

Many people are viewing the fact that they are teaming up with the Bloc as a slap in the face to federalism, and the BS that Dion is spouting about how it'll be better to work with Quebec rather than marginalize them is ludicrous. As a country we have bent over backwards to make Quebec part of this nation, and they just keep wanting more and more, and why not? Fuck if we're going to keep giving it to them they're going to keep taking it. Eventually, like with any spoiled child, a line has to be drawn.

 

All 4 leaders are douchebags.

 

 

I'll drink to that!

[borntohula]

Ya, but the Tri-force of diarrhea.

 

Also, I have no problem with the idea of a coalition gov't if there is massive corruption or mismanagement etc., but the Cons have only been in power for what, 2 weeks? Since the Cons backed down from their political funding & union striking ban promises, i don't see any need for the Cons to be taken down.

 

don't make it sound like the tories are "new" to this whole thing. they've been in power for what, two years now? sure, they were re-elected, but the cabinet's the same, and most of the seats are as well. harper has had a long enough time to prove whether he can handle the job.

 

i dont like the idea of dion being PM, but at least it'll only be for 5-7 months. at this point, anything is better than harper. he could always just step down, and let another conservative take his place. if he actually had concern for canada and his party, it'd be the smart thing to do. i think the coalition would back off at that point.

 

but no. it looks like tomorrow morning he'll be taking this to the governor general and appealing her to let him prorogue parliament. i bet she'll let him too, the cunt.

[Bizud]

Thats a fallacy. There are distinct difference's between all the party's.

 

Blocs really only platform issue, is "Get as much for Quebec and threaten to break up the country"

 

Liberals and the Green, agreed on environmental issues (eg carbon tax) but not on the extent of tax. Greens would shut down oil sands, liberal wouldn't.

Fiscally the Greens tend to be more similar to the Tories than the Liberals and NDP.

Under the NDP, despite having just been laid off from my job, I'm still a "rich Canadian" Liberals tend to be more reasonable when it comes to taxation.

 

Oh come off it. The Conservatives don't accept the reality of climate change, all the other parties do. The Conservatives want to "get tough on crime," none of the other parties accept that approach. The other parties are all pro gay rights, the Conservatives are not. The other parties want to stimulate the economy in keeping with Keynesian economics, the Conservatives do not. The other parties want to move towards drug decriminalization and harm reduction, the Conservatives do not. The other parties support universal day care, the Conservatives say that's "anti-family." The Conservatives are extremely anti-union, the other parties are not. The Conservatives axed the court challenges program and the law reform commission and gutted Status of Women Canada - all the other parties will be glad to restore these. The Conservatives want to keep us in Afghanistan indefinitely - the other parties at least want a timetable for withdrawal. On economics, crime and justice, drugs, gay rights, the role of the family and the state, health care, the environment, foreign policy, the Conservatives are completely on the other side of the line as the other parties. It's a pretty clear split. And the Bloc are a very progressive, downright leftist, union-backed party. Yes, there are differences, often great, between the parties to the left of the Conservatives, but they all agree Harper is taking the country in the completely wrong direction.

 

Again just like Ravenous Yam pointed out, if you take being Anti one party, as you voted for another party there are far more Anti-Liberals than Anti-Tories,

far far more Anti-NDP than Anti-Tories

FAR FAR FAR more Anti-bloc than Anti-Tories

 

I was referring to MPs in the House, who get to decide who forms our government. The population elects MPs, it's the makeup of the House that determines who governs.

 

Also, I have no problem with the idea of a coalition gov't if there is massive corruption or mismanagement etc., but the Cons have only been in power for what, 2 weeks? Since the Cons backed down from their political funding & union striking ban promises, i don't see any need for the Cons to be taken down.

 

That's not why coalitions are ever formed. Coalitions are formed when parties decide they have more in common with each other than with the other parties and realize they can actually achieve their common objectives by working together and forming the government. And yes, these parties do have common objectives that are diametrically opposed to Harper's.

 

IMO the 3 dopes have been working on this in some form since the end of last election & have been waiting for their 1st legit opportunity to take Harper down. Its a total power-grab.

 

I wish I could believe that, but I'm not willing to give them that credit. Besides, they should grab power if they can, that's how the system works. Don't think for a second that any other party in a similar position would behave any differently.

 

i don't see any need for the Cons to be taken down.

 

There is every reason for Stephen Harper to be removed from power, the man is a threat to everything progressive about Canada. I'm far more scared of him than I am of the Bloc. He is a conservative ideologue to the core and the proposals we saw him try to ram through last week after getting an increased minority make me shudder even more at what he would do if he ever got a majority. He is the problem. He is the enemy. Destroy him utterly at any cost.

 

Heck, do people even remember what this guy was all about six years ago when he became the Canadian Alliance's leader - or even 15 years ago when he was a Reform Party MP? More private health care, more cozying up to the US, no same-sex marriage, no strikes allowed, further limit immigration, FLAT TAX RATE? Harper fundamentally believes the federal government has too much power with all its money and that the only way the government can play a positive role in people's lives is by cutting their taxes, enforcing the law with an iron fist and fighting wars abroad. That's why his government has eliminated the huge surplus that existed when he took power, surpluses that were expected to keep coming if the Liberals remained in power - to curtail the federal government's spending power. That's completely out of line with what the other parties, with the exception of the Bloc, believe. Harper also opposes what he describes as social engineering in favour of "liberalism and feminism" on the part of liberal-dominated institutions like academia and the media. Remember this one? "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

Edited December 4, 2008 by Bizud

[Computer]

Everyone needs to calm down about Harper, seriously.. he's not that bad. Listen to Jon Stewart...

 

“Yesterday, our weird, attic-living brother surprised everyone by holding an election. They’ve got their own government,” he said in mock incredulity. “It’s adorable.”

 

In previous spoofs of our elections, the popular talk show host has described us as nice to a flaw and boring, and Stephen Harper as “that guy who looks like Rex in Desperate Housewives.”

 

Canada is a relatively liberal country, Stewart said, and the Conservative Party is more like conservative-light, or what he more eloquently called “Gay Nader Fans for Peace.”"

 

Stephan Harper is much more left wing than Barack Obama...

 

I've also never seen a statement from Mr.Harper or his party claiming that they were against gay rights.

You're also saying that the Conservatives are on the complete opposite side of the other parties as if it's some form of negative, well isn't that what politics are?

You're also implying that Afghanistan is the conservative's fault... it's the liberals that first sent troops and never pulled them out. The conservatives have also set a pull out date of 2011, Harper said so during the federal election

 

You're posts are implying a serious wrong doing by the conservative government over the past two years, really, what have they done that's so bad? Waste millions of tax-payer dollars in an advertising scandal and the further report and trial? It seems you're just upset because their political ideology doesn't coincide with your own.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Computer

[Bizud]

Not a chance. Barrack Obama doesn't see the central problem of modern society as the private sector - including the family - having too little power and the public sector too much, nor view himself as a class warrior for the private sector. Barrack Obama isn't dedicated to undoing a "liberal and feminst social engineering experiment" being carried out by liberal-dominated media, academics and interest groups. Barrack Obama doesn't think climate change is a lie cooked up in order to impliment a global socialist wealth-redistribution scheme. Harper is reigned in by the realities of governing Canada, and you can see that in the changes he's made to how he presents himself politically as he's gone from Reform MP to the head of an ultra-right-wing lobby group to leader of the opposition to PM - he's been watering himself down. You want to know what Stephen Harper really believes, look at what he said between 1988 and 2000, before he ever conceived he might actually have a shot at becoming PM.

[borntohula]

I've also never seen a statement from Mr.Harper or his party claiming that they were against gay rights.

 

[...]

 

You're posts are implying a serious wrong doing by the conservative government over the past two years, really, what have they done that's so bad? Waste millions of tax-payer dollars in an advertising scandal and the further report and trial? It seems you're just upset because their political ideology doesn't coincide with your own.

 

as much as i like jon stewart, i think you should have better support for your beliefs than a satirical news show.

 

harper is not necessarily further left than obama. it's a given that canadian politics are left of the americans, but harper and obama occupy the same kind of space. they're quite similar in terms of politics. they are very different still. it really depends on what the issue is. they see eye-to-eye on the war, but not things like health care or human rights.

 

in terms of your statements above, i take it you never watched the debates that took place prior to the election this past october. on several occasions, harper was asked what his stance was on gay marriage, and he stated that he would not "undermine the tenets of a traditional marriage" meaning simply that he would not allow gays to marry. that, in bold lettering, spells to me that he does not support gay rights, that he does not see them as equal.

 

secondly, your comment that "you're just upset because their political ideology doesn't coincide with your own" is bizarre, given that you're defending harper's politics because they're akin to your own. how is that any different? how can you criticize someone for being "upset" at a politician who doesn't reflect their beliefs? isn't that only normal?

 

but what have they done that's so bad? lets see. most recently, they called an election that cost somewhere around $300 mil, just so they could be re-instated. that seems like excessive spending to me, especially in a time when our economy is incredibly weak. along the same lines, proroguing parliament until late january is equally a stupid decision. you know they're not going to be pouring over the books in the parliament library over those six weeks. they're going to be campaigning to canadians for their cause, costing us even more money, all the while their budget plan will still remain as mysterious as it is right now. they don't have a fucking clue.

 

my personal favourite "harper moment" would be his handling of the hezbollah/israel crisis in 2006. in true israel-sympathizer fashion, harper stood still while israel was shelling lebanon in an effort to retaliate for the soldiers that hezbollah had captured. rather than intervene and perhaps come to the defence of lebanon, a country tied to the hezbollah but clearly not governed by it, he let them kill innocent lebanese, calling it a "measured response." give me a fucking break. how is debilitating an entire country's infrastructure a "measured response" when only two soldiers were captured? furthermore, how can you justify attacking a country in such a way when the lebanese gov't had nothing to do with hezbollah's actions? what i dislike most of all about his comment is how he is completely unaware of the conflict between israel and hezbollah, and how it dates back more than 20 years prior to the incident in 2006. measured to who? dude needs to take a refresher course on middle east conflicts before he takes a side. harper later tried to make up for his comment when he had learned that many canadians were there during the attacks, so he sent his private plane to lebanon to help them evacuate to canada, but that didn't help the fact that many were still left homeless and displaced.

 

i could go on. i'm not saying that the liberals are a better solution, or have administered this country any better either. but this guy's made an awful lot of mistakes for the length of time he's been in office. fuck, obama's not even president yet and he's already done more than harper has this year.

[Computer]

You can't fault him on the Israel Lebanon conflict because if we intervened it would go against the US support of Israel. I highly doubt the liberals would have done anything different in that situation.

[Morglor9]

Not against gay rights? Didn't Harper say before election in 2006 that if he was elected he intended to reopen the gay marriage debate, even though by that point it was pretty much a closed book?

 

There's also the all-important fact that if Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003 the already stretched Canadian military would be a little more stretched because we'd have soldiers fighting in Iraq.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Morglor9

[calgarydave]

THIS JUST IN!!!!!!

 

NHL Coalition

 

Having decided that the Detroit Redwings technically won the 2008 Stanley Cup, the Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers and Dallas Stars have formed a coalition demanding a three way ownership of the league title. Rational for their decision revolves around their total combined scoring in the 2008 Semi-Finals, their total share of season ticket holders versus the Detroit Redwings and their horror at discovering the Detroit Redwings are using a more cost effective and efficient but non-union made Silver polish to keep the Stanley Cup gleaming.

 

The three teams are being assisted in their bid to overturn the traditional results by members of the Quebec Hockey League who have no real interest in the success of the NHL in general but sense an opportunity to demand Zambonis and other critical equipment be manufactured in Quebec. Player representatives, Team Owners and Nike are expected to submit their proposals to Don Cherry in the next few days. Fans and ticket holders are neither being asked or allowed a voice in the final decision.

[Crusader]

haha. hockey joke in a canadian politics post.

[Moonlight_Graham]

don't make it sound like the tories are "new" to this whole thing. they've been in power for what, two years now? sure, they were re-elected, but the cabinet's the same, and most of the seats are as well. harper has had a long enough time to prove whether he can handle the job.

 

i dont like the idea of dion being PM, but at least it'll only be for 5-7 months. at this point, anything is better than harper. he could always just step down, and let another conservative take his place. if he actually had concern for canada and his party, it'd be the smart thing to do. i think the coalition would back off at that point.

 

but no. it looks like tomorrow morning he'll be taking this to the governor general and appealing her to let him prorogue parliament. i bet she'll let him too, the cunt.

 

How can you bring down a gov't only 2 weeks into its new mandate? They only had a throne speech and an "economic update". Harper is an extremely arrogant politician (i thought we were done with that for awhile when Chretien "retired"), he totally had the other parties by the balls his last term & motion after motion Dion was too much of a pussy to call him on anything & go for an election. So Harper tables some more arrogant motions last week & the opposition parties saw it as their 1st chance to form what is, IMO, a coalition that has been in the works since the end of the last election. These douchebags were just waiting for their 1st chance to bring the Cons down, and the Cons are douchebags for cornering them into this position.

 

Why should Harper step down now? He was voted in by Canadians 6 weeks ago, & it would just create more chaos/instability. What he should do is take this proroguement period to reach out to the other parties, and the other parties should do the same & they should all GROW THE FUCK UP and sit down like adults & hammer out a budget that everyone is happy with.

 

Harper missed a huge chance to reach out to the other parties during his national address the other night. If he continues to be an arrogant prick & the coalition takes power in Jan. then he should step down then (and will likely have massive in-party pressure to do so).

 

As for the Governor General, she 's not a cunt, she had no choice as she doesn't have any real power at all. All of her "power" is just convention and ceremonial. She really had no choice to prorogue because thats what the PM asked & an election was out of the question.

 

 

Bizud:

There is every reason for Stephen Harper to be removed from power, the man is a threat to everything progressive about Canada. I'm far more scared of him than I am of the Bloc. He is a conservative ideologue to the core and the proposals we saw him try to ram through last week after getting an increased minority make me shudder even more at what he would do if he ever got a majority. He is the problem. He is the enemy. Destroy him utterly at any cost.

 

Thats just your opinion, but your opinion lost last election. i didn't vote for Harper either, but thats democracy. Canada isn't the U.S. in the 60's where people just shot leaders whenever they disapproved of them.

[Bizud]

Your right, it's Canada, where your ability to govern depends on maintaining the confidence of the House. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy. If you don't have a majority of the seats, even if you are the largest party, even if you got more votes than any other single party in an election, you had better hope everyone else doesn't gang up on you because if they do you're out of power. That is how Canadian democracy works. How can 38% of the vote be considered a "mandate" for anything? Nobody gets "mandates" from elections in Canada, that is a colloquialism. Ever heard of Parliamentary supremacy? The government serves at the pleasure of the House, period, and this House isn't going to support a Conservative government.

 

Why should Harper step down now? He was voted in by Canadians 6 weeks ago, & it would just create more chaos/instability. What he should do is take this proroguement period to reach out to the other parties, and the other parties should do the same & they should all GROW THE FUCK UP and sit down like adults & hammer out a budget that everyone is happy with.

 

He WAS NOT VOTED IN. This is a pretty simple point that I shouldn't have to explain. We DON'T VOTE FOR PRIME MINISTERS OR GOVERNMENTS, WE VOTE FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. 143 of the elected MPs support him. 163 support Dion. That means Dion gets to be PM, SIMPLE. AS. THAT. Of course I don't expect him to step down, I expect him to fight to the bitter end and if I were a Conservative I would demand no less.

 

As for the Governor General, she did have the choice to refuse Harper's request to prorogue. Many constitutional experts think it's unconstitutional to prorogue parliament just to avoid defeat in the House - it goes against our constitutional principle that the government only gets to remain the government so long as it maintains the confidence of the House. Jean could have refused and Harper would probably have resigned. She chickened out on being only the second GG in Canadian history to refuse to follow a PM's request. But the GG is not obligated to follow every request, as part of her job is after all to prevent abuse of power. But, in layman's terms, she didn't have the cojones.

[ToadMan]

Ah, the fact we vote for MP's and not PM's... it's the most misunderstood fact about our system.

 

I think there are other issues to the GG's choice... That being that the GG can be forced out by the PM (I believe)... Which is a change from when the GG was selected by the Queen. In many ways the GG serves the house, as much as the house serves the GG. (WARNING: the previous is unqualified, and I haven't dug out the facts to back it up, please don't hang me about it).

 

I appreciate the lively debate, and please continue keeping it as much above board as you can.

[calgarydave]

Under the Canadian constitution we do in fact vote for MP's not PM's.

But that is not how the majority of Canadians vote. The fact of the matter is that we are not given a choice for who our individual party candidates are in our riding we are given only the one choice, and cause MP's for the most part are forced by the whip to follow party lines, especially in confidence matters we are essentally voting for the party over the MP.

 

Take it one step further ask random people on the street most people wont know who their MP was, or who they voted for MP, but they'll be able to tell you what party they voted for.

 

We have to face it as Canadians is the political system in the states is far more effective having 3 levels of elected gov (Congress, Senate, and Pres). We really only have one (We elect MP's which determines the PM which picks the senate)

[borntohula]

Take it one step further ask random people on the street most people wont know who their MP was, or who they voted for MP, but they'll be able to tell you what party they voted for.

 

i really don' think that's something that you can blindly assert. wherever i've lived, be it mississauga, barrie, sudbury and now toronto, people have been very aware of who their MP is. sometimes there's confusion if the party changes a candidate, but i've never not known who my candidate was, even once election time was over.

 

Why should Harper step down now? He was voted in by Canadians 6 weeks ago, & it would just create more chaos/instability. What he should do is take this proroguement period to reach out to the other parties, and the other parties should do the same & they should all GROW THE FUCK UP and sit down like adults & hammer out a budget that everyone is happy with.

 

i think he should step down because while his party was voted in, he clearly is standing in the way of getting things done. the last election was a farce and really didn't change much, either. it was a spectacle that we didn't really need. he needed to act on the economy, and hasn't bothered to yet. just because his party has been recently voted back in, that shouldn't wipe my mind clear of all that he's done in the past. i was suggesting that he could step down simply as a way for the cons to hold their power, and continue with parliament without proroguing it. with harper gone, the coalition would be appeased, and we could get to work on budget talks. now we have to wait six weeks for any sort of action, and he still has to have a confidence vote when he arrives back to parliament. so long as that vote is not over a budget, i imagine that the coalition will vote against him, which in that case, will probably force us into another election because as we've seen, the governor general clearly doesn't believe the coalition could govern.

 

Harper missed a huge chance to reach out to the other parties during his national address the other night. If he continues to be an arrogant prick & the coalition takes power in Jan. then he should step down then (and will likely have massive in-party pressure to do so).

agreed. although ireally don't have much faith in him changing his tune at this point. i'll be surprised if they actually do have a budget ready at the end of the suspension.

 

As for the Governor General, she 's not a cunt, she had no choice as she doesn't have any real power at all.

i don't really think she's a cunt. i was just mad because i know she has no power or influence and won't stand in the way of harper. she could if she wanted to, but i think if she let the coalition give it a go, she'd basically be responsible for any mistakes that they made. no one wants that on their heads.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Under the Canadian constitution we do in fact vote for MP's not PM's.

But that is not how the majority of Canadians vote. The fact of the matter is that we are not given a choice for who our individual party candidates are in our riding we are given only the one choice, and cause MP's for the most part are forced by the whip to follow party lines, especially in confidence matters we are essentally voting for the party over the MP.

 

Yes exactly. We vote for MP's, but most of them have little influence on policy other then giving suggestions from their constituents. The PM is all-powerful. He can tightly control individual MP's, who can do next to nothing about it. The PM has the final say on policy, who is in the cabinet, the PMO etc. Its sad and not very democratic, but voting for your MP doesn't mean much of a poop when they are forced to vote with whatever decisions the PM makes.

 

But anyways lets just hope they all learn to work together a bit & avoid more power-hungry childish crap. All this is happening when they should be working on the economy.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Moonlight_Graham

[calgarydave]

Yes exactly. We vote for MP's, but most of them have little influence on policy other then giving suggestions from their constituents. The PM is all-powerful. He can tightly control individual MP's, who can do next to nothing about it. The PM has the final say on policy, who is in the cabinet, the PMO etc. Its sad and not very democratic, but voting for your MP doesn't mean much of a poop when they are forced to vote with whatever decisions the PM makes.

 

That is why as Canadians we tend to vote more along party lines, and for the leader of that party than our individual ridings MP's.

 

But anyways lets just hope they all learn to work together a bit & avoid more power-hungry childish crap. All this is happening when they should be working on the economy.

 

You'd hope that they could all work together, after this is Canada where we pride ourselves on our co-operational skills.

[Moonlight_Graham]

You'd hope that they could all work together, after this is Canada where we pride ourselves on our co-operational skills.

 

Ya like Quebecers and western Canadians who want to separate lol

[calgarydave]

Ya like Quebecers and western Canadians who want to separate lol

 

Lol most Albertans laugh at the Alberta separatist party. Its nothing taken truly seriously. The people who do are still just bitter over the NEP.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Lol most Albertans laugh at the Alberta separatist party. Its nothing taken truly seriously.

 

Really? I thought a lot of them were PO'd. I mean the gov't does pretty much not give a poop about them (until the Cons got in). If Harper got ousted by Dion/Layton how upset would they be out there?

[heyrabbit]

;) One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is the proposed subisidy cut to the parties, which was one of the supposed reasons for the forming of the coalition, along with Harper's failure to present a plan to "fix" the economy. What you won't hear anywhere is what is required to "fix" an economy, or what constitutes "breaking" it. The truth is that there's really no such thing as a broken economy. An economy that's in poor shape is so because it was inhibited or interfered with, an act possibly only to the government. Recessions are the result of inflation. Inflation is caused by the government, when it inflates the money supply. The government's control over economics, therefore, is exactly what causes recessions. The removal of subsidies, such as the one poposed by Harper, is exactly what is needed to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, this infuriated you-know-who, the slightly more Socialist party leaders. (Big surprise, government subsidy is a Socialist principle.) Socialism is a failed economic system.

Everyone should be terrified of Layton and Dion. Layton specifically had no chance in hell of ever becoming PM. The man has admitted to wanting to suspend oil production in favor of the environment (!). His ideas are too Socialist even by the standards of the large majority of the population, which is politically "moderate". I don't think co-operation necessarily results in good ideas, and I think that's a stupid reason to support the coalition. We don't need co-operation, we need someone to think. And the first question they need to ask is, "What's an economy and how does it operate?". Nobody in parliament has asked that question or found the answer to it. I'm annoyed.

So all your ideas to improve the economy involve interfering with it, preventing it from being an economy. Don't come crying to me if the country becomes fucked up by two stupid Socialists you approved of.

Edited December 8, 2008 by heyrabbit

[C-Bacon]

Because free-market neo-liberalism has done so much for so many. Take case studies from nations that were force fed (via internal or external forces) neo-liberal reforms - like most of Latin America during the 1980s and compare them to when they broke away from such reforms. Or just look at places like Norway or Sweden and how terrible things are going for their 'big government' economic policies.

 

His ideas are too Socialist even by the standards of the large majority of the population, which is politically "moderate".

 

The "moderate" public actually support most of the NDP policies.

 

Also, let me guess, when you say socialism is a failed economic system, you're referring to the Soviet Union, right?