TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Yesterdays Protests
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Fair enough. Your arguement is that ethical is subjective.

Of course ethics are subjective; however, beyond that, just because something is ethical doesn't mean it's right and conversely just because something is unethical does not mean it's wrong.

quote:

I think a better slogan would be "Just because it's legal, doesn't make it democratic"

Better, but still inaccurate... "just because it's legal doesn't mean it reflects our preference." would have been more accurate.

The long and short of this whole debate is that we live in a representative democracy; where we entrust people to act in what they believe is our best interest... it seems what people want is a delegative democracy; where we instruct our delegates on what we believe is out best interest. Both have advantages and disadvantages; however, changing the system would require a constitutional amendment and no one has the balls to open the constitution up for debate.

i think a reformation of the constitution is whats needed here. But you are right, canadians are too timid for that. This is why we are getting screwed over. Because we collectively have demonstrated our weakness and consistent societal alzheimers when it comes to corrupt politicians.

Canadians need to stand up and demand that there is assurance that this will never happen again

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 i think a reformation of the constitution is whats needed here. But you are right, canadians are too timid for that. This is why we are getting screwed over. Because we collectively have demonstrated our weakness and consistent societal alzheimers when it comes to corrupt politicians.

This simply isn't a big enough issue in the minds of most Canadians to get them to put aside their regional ambitions and grievances if the constitution were reopened... thus any proposed change would fail (since it would contain a veto for Quebec so the west would quash it or it would contain a veto for Alberta and Quebec would quash it). It's not a question of weakness; rather, it's a question of citizens putting national interests above regional ones.

quote:

Canadians need to stand up and demand that there is assurance that this will never happen again

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I think that the ability of the House to form a new government if the government loses the confidence thereof is a very good check on the government; however, I do not believe that it is necessary to do this now... the threat seems to have worked well enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This simply isn't a big enough issue in the minds of most Canadians to get them to put aside their regional ambitions and grievances if the constitution were reopened... thus any proposed change would fail (since it would contain a veto for Quebec so the west would quash it or it would contain a veto for Alberta and Quebec would quash it). It's not a question of weakness; rather, it's a question of citizens putting national interests above regional ones. I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I think that the ability of the House to form a new government if the government loses the confidence thereof is a very good check on the government; however, I do not believe that it is necessary to do this now... the threat seems to have worked well enough.

im all for a vote of confidence. But i think it should automatically result in an election.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 im all for a vote of confidence. But i think it should automatically result in an election.

I would prefer that too; however, I wouldn't want to take the option of instilling a new government off the table, as it gives greater leverage... think about this latest situation... without the possibility of being ousted from government without an election the Conservatives would not have been willing to make any concessions, as they have no fear of an election. As a Conservative supporter you may now think that is a good thing; however, what Canadians in general want is for the parties to cut out the partisanship and just make government work... the possibility of being replaced as the government without an election acts as incentive for the government to work with the opposition. It may work against the interests of Conservatives now but it is in the interests of Canadians and at some point the shoe will be on the other foot.

I think if the opposition believed strongly in what they are saying, they would have no trouble going for an election even this soon. So the threat would be there and canadians would vote accordingly. But the fact is that even as a minority the conservatives were given a mandate. So barring anything substantial (and cutting taxpayer subsidies to parties is not substantial) then they should be allowed to govern. The threat of an election over a minority government is sufficient. If the opposition feels the government cant operate over an issue, they shouldnt have any trouble convincing the public as well, even so soon after the last election. If they cant persuade the public, then they would pay politically for making such a move over an issue that is of non importance.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I think if the opposition believed strongly in what they are saying, they would have no trouble going for an election even this soon. So the threat would be there and canadians would vote accordingly. But the fact is that even as a minority the conservatives were given a mandate. So barring anything substantial (and cutting taxpayer subsidies to parties is not substantial) then they should be allowed to govern. The threat of an election over a minority government is sufficient. If the opposition feels the government cant operate over an issue, they shouldnt have any trouble convincing the public as well, even so soon after the last election. If they cant persuade the public, then they would pay politically for making such a move over an issue that is of non importance.

While I do not disagree with you in theory, the reality is that finances play a major role in elections. Parties do need to consider money and only the Conservatives have any... which is why they have no fear of an election... winning becomes much easier when you are the only voice that can be heard. In a situation like the present the lack of money by the opposition parties acts as a disincentive to running an election... which is why this alternative is necessary. As someone who believes so strongly in democracy you should agree that money should not be the deciding factor in an election.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I do not disagree with you in theory, the reality is that finances play a major role in elections. Parties do need to consider money and only the Conservatives have any... which is why they have no fear of an election... winning becomes much easier when you are the only voice that can be heard. In a situation like the present the lack of money by the opposition parties acts as a disincentive to running an election... which is why this alternative is necessary. As someone who believes so strongly in democracy you should agree that money should not be the deciding factor in an election.

Perhaps. But if this really was significant enough to consider government change then i suggest taking it to the polls to back that up. Otherwise agree or disagree it is coming from a newly elected, freshly mandated government who has the right to govern as it sees fit. If this is such a huge attack on democracy, the opposition should present it's case as such and outline why it feels it needs to govern to prevent this and then ask the public for a mandate. Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Perhaps. But if this really was significant enough to consider government change then i suggest taking it to the polls to back that up. Otherwise agree or disagree it is coming from a newly elected, freshly mandated government who has the right to govern as it sees fit.

Sorry Jay but this is where you are just plain wrong. They do not have the right to govern as they see fit. Governments have the right to govern at the pleasure of the members of the house... so they have a right to govern as the majority of the house sees fit. Whether this is how it should be or not is what we were discussing before and is a good theoretical discussion Canada needs to have; however, for the time being what should be is not as important as what is. Under our constitution the government only has the authority to govern if the house (not the people) allow them to... and as we said before, no one has the balls to open up the constitution.

quote:

If this is such a huge attack on democracy, the opposition should present it's case as such and outline why it feels it needs to govern to prevent this and then ask the public for a mandate. Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

Again, in a perfect world I would agree with you but in reality you need money to make your case. Perhaps if we were to have elections where all parties received the exact same amount of money per candidate and were only allowed to spend that money in order to run their campaign then I would agree with you... but until then money remains an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

not quite, but I can see how opponents will call it that. the fact remains that it's a legitimate avenue to take if the opposition agrees to band together.

why is that so hard for people to understand? if no single opposition party can win, but they agree to band together to govern, that IS a majority under our political system.

what's troubling here is not a coaltion gov't...but that *this* coalition would include parties with *substantial* political/ideological differences who are each going to require ridiculous concessions to hold the coalition together. If their agendas were mostly similar, with only minor variances, it might be a more palatable option...but that's not the case here. The commonality is a desire for power and a desire to turf the CPC. That is not enough to justify a coaltion, IMHO. I would HOPE that is why a majority of Canadians oppose the coalition.

and it's "coup d��tat". if you're going to throw cheesy terms around, at least get them right, lol

It looks like the Liberals want a new leader in place by January 27, 2009. Its a two man race right now.....with MI being the front runner. IMO Bob Rae should quickly accept that he is not the front runner and throw his support behind Michael. The best thing they could do is show a strong support for a leader instead of a divide between two candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 ...and only because of very persuasive american style attack ads and good conservative political posturing have the conservatives been able to capitalise.

I really don't see what's "American style" about them. Sounds like you're just reaching out with the usual anti-American sentiment.

Aside from that minor detail, I would say that you're partially correct. In the last election, they were largely attacking the Liberals. Many seem to have conveniently forgotten, though, that in the prior election, the tables were turned, it was all about Harper's "hidden agenda" and the Conservatives were out there making daily policy statements as part of their campaign. Of course they pointed out the Liberal scandal but given the circumstances, you can hardly blame them for that.

My opinion - the reality is that it's not a Liberal or Conservative thing and this is just how campaigns are fought, period, in almost any country. The incumbent party usually attacks the opposition and says precious little about their own aims; the opposition parties have to defend themselves and come up with a real workable policy.

Dion didn't really do either of these things. He had to prove that he and his party knew how to keep the Canadian economy running with the rest of the world sinking into a recession, and he had to prove that Liberal corruption and the QPC elite were a thing of the past. Arguably he made things much worse in terms of the latter with this coup, and yes, it was a coup, a coup doesn't have to be illegal. Purporting to be close enough in vision and values to both the NDP and Bloc in order to form a lasting and functional coalition smacks of the same intellectual dishonesty and political expediency that we voted them out for in the first place.

The Conservatives probably will not change their tactics - they will continue attacking the Liberals and generally getting too comfortable. They are in a weak spot right now, and when the Liberals are able to demonstrate that they have the economic aptitude and moral clarity to govern again, they will win. It's a question of when, not if; but stunts like this one are only going to extend the when out further.

Again, remember the Mackenzie King incident decades ago. The coalition failed so spectacularly that he ended up winning a majority government afterwards. Citizens are probably a little miffed with the Conservatives right now but they are downright pissed off at the Liberals. I think a lot of Canadians didn't expressly vote Conservative last election, they just voted against Dion, and the thought of having him as an appointed PM just isn't/wasn't palatable to most Canadians, including Liberal voters.

quote:

I'm not entirley sure how and why conservatives always seem to perpetuate the "underdog" image; sure I would agree that conservative doctrines are not the natural persuasion of most Canadians however the fact that the cons have held an origami government for the last while should no less negate your claim that there isnt a conservative movement.

Of course there are a certain number of political conservatives here, especially out west, but I think the real reason Harper's government achieved and held onto power was not due to any serious conservative steam, but rather due to an anti-Liberal movement. In other words, a loosely-affiliated group of disgruntled voters who couldn't and wouldn't trust the Liberals given the state of affairs at the time, and weren't silly enough to vote for the NDP or one of the Mickey Mouse parties like the Freedom party.

Just because the Conservative party is ostensibly in power right now doesn't mean that conservatism as a "movement" isn't overshadowed by the liberal Big Brother. The mass media and stone-faced corporations are overwhelmingly Liberal supporters, and the union nuts are all NDP but they'll settle for the Liberals if they have to because they really really hate the Conservatives. There was hardly any "big money" that went into the CPC campaign - their donations all came in small amounts from Joe Citizen.

Almost every time I see lavish spending (especially on advertising) it's for a liberal cause. This shouldn't be a surprise, considering that fiscal conservatism is ipso facto lower spending. It's not that conservatives are doing anything themselves to promote an "underdog" image - it's the obscene spending on liberal campaigns and special interests that give them that image.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT what's troubling here is not a coaltion gov't...but that *this* coalition would include parties with *substantial* political/ideological differences who are each going to require ridiculous concessions to hold the coalition together. If their agendas were mostly similar, with only minor variances, it might be a more palatable option...but that's not the case here. The commonality is a desire for power and a desire to turf the CPC. That is not enough to justify a coaltion, IMHO. I would HOPE that is why a majority of Canadians oppose the coalition.

I think that does get to the heart of the matter. But that is what many of us have been trying to say when we said that we didn't vote for this "coalition" and that it's undemocratic.

If you had parties with similar ideals banding together, you could fairly say that a majority of people did vote for at least a certain subset of their platforms, and if the coalition intended to govern based on that commonality then it would be a reasonable thing to do.

But this wasn't about platform, it was about ousting the Conservatives, period. The opposition parties didn't have any serious plan. It was a blatant we'll-figure-out-the-details-later power grab, and to me that makes it unethical and undemocratic. Our constitution doesn't protect hate speech and historical revisionism because we want people to engage in those activities; it does so because it's the only way to guarantee political freedom. Similarly, the fact that we protect coalition governments under the law does not mean that we hoped to protect coalitions formed out of political expediency. We want to protect coalitions of values, but in doing so we really have to protect all coalitions.

And don't accuse me of morally equating this coalition to hate speech or whatever - that has nothing to do with it, it was just an example of why rights need to be defined broadly even if that means including things in the definition that we don't really want.

Also, this isn't totally related but I think part of the disdain also comes from the fact that the CPC is essentially a coalition - between the former Progressive Conservatives and Reform parties - and they had the balls to merge into one party and run for election.

If you think along those lines then all of these parties are coalitions as they have all merged, and demerged along the lines of history.

Conservatives former parties = Liberal-Conservative Party, Progressive Party which folded into the conservative party in 1942 and became progressive conservative, Reform Party etc

NDP is an incarnate of the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation which became the first socialist government (saskatchewan) ever to form in north america.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterdays Protests

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So being unethical is ok as long as the outcome benefits you? huh??

Don't you understand that no matter what the liberals do, it's always okayed

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sorry Jay but this is where you are just plain wrong. They do not have the right to govern as they see fit. Governments have the right to govern at the pleasure of the members of the house... so they have a right to govern as the majority of the house sees fit. Whether this is how it should be or not is what we were discussing before and is a good theoretical discussion Canada needs to have; however, for the time being what should be is not as important as what is. Under our constitution the government only has the authority to govern if the house (not the people) allow them to... and as we said before, no one has the balls to open up the constitution.

I think you'd really love to live in Poland before the 90's, you'd really like it there

quote:

Originally posted by djeso I think you'd really love to live in Poland before the 90's, you'd really like it there

Really? I made a factual observation about our constitution... how does that suggest that I would be a fan of Soviet era Poland? I love that you profess to understand my political leanings based on factual, non-partisan comments, that's great!

BTW, I am about as far from a Soviet supporter as you could ever get... think Italy in the 30s and you're closer to my political stripes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterdays Protests

quote:

Originally posted by djeso Don't you understand that no matter what the liberals do, it's always okayed

care to explain the CPC flip-flop on fixed election dates?

how about Harper campaigning on Senate reform, seeking to cap terms and have provincial input into appointments, etc...but is now going to push through 18 appointments to fill vacancies (despite not doign so during his entire first term) as a pre-emptive move in case his gov't is toppled.

so it was 'undemocatic' and unethical for the coalition to act (despite it being part of our process), but it's ok for Harper to invoke a legit option of prorogation to suspend Parliament, go on an ad blitz, rush through Senate appointments, etc. in the meantime?

The Liberals or coalition do something shady and it's unethical, undemocratic, etc. The CPC do somethign shady and it's "for the good of Canadians" as someone pointed out earlier.

the partisan double standards are hilarious. for the record, everything is 'legitimate' (the coalition, the prorogation, the impending Senate appts, etc)...but it's ALL partisan bullshit.

I realize that every gov't does/would do this. it's just amusing that the Liberals continue to be bashed as this corrupt/unethical/whatever party, while Harper repeatedly proves that he and the CPC are no different than any other party in power.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterdays Protests

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT care to explain the CPC flip-flop on fixed election dates?

That was partisan, no doubt, but does that really compare to pissing away billions of dollars of taxpayer money in scandal and trying to seize power immediately after losing an election?

Dion also goaded Harper non-stop about that election - the Liberals wanted an election because they seriously thought that they could (ha) win. And they got their panties in a bunch over being so very wrong, so they resorted to shadier options.

Everything is partisan, and very little is for the good of all Canadians (although time is the only fair judge of that), but just because several different things are all self-serving does not make them all morally equivalent.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterdays Protests

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That was partisan, no doubt, but does that really compare to pissing away bill ions of dollars of taxpayer money in scandal and trying to seize power immediately after losing an election? Dion also goaded Harper non-stop about that election - the Liberals wanted an election because they seriously thought that they could (ha) win. And they got their panties in a bunch over being so very wrong, so they resorted to shadier options. Everything is partisan, and very little is for the good of all Canadians (although time is the only fair judge of that), but just because several different things are all self-serving does not make them all morally equivalent.

clearly it was partisan...but I'm certainly not equating anything to the prior scandals.

I was responding to the post of "no matter what the liberals do, it's okayed" to point out that the same thing happens with CPC supports...or as you have done, brought up something worse the previous Liberal gov't did, as if that somehow justifies what the CPC has done now

"yeah, what we did was *clearly* wrong...but but but it wasn't as bad as what those Liberals did!"

that election wasn't "free"...so it's hardly ok to sweep it under the rug.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterdays Protests

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT "yeah, what we did was *clearly* wrong...but but but it wasn't as bad as what those Liberals did!"

I'm not discounting what the Conservative party has done. I said in another thread that Harper and his party don't have what it takes to win more elections if (and the operative word is if) the Liberals get their act together.

But if you're going to accuse me (or anyone) of a double standard, then you have to demonstrate that we're responding differently to events of equal weight. These things are not equal weight; therefore, there is no double standard.

what does weighting have to do with a double standard existing?

If one side rationalize away the improper actions of their party and fail/refuse to acknowledge that they do so, while criticizing the other side for doing so...that IS a double standard (regardless of any difference between the improper actions of each party)

yes. the Liberal scandals involved billions. yes, it's worse than anything the Harper gov't has done and probably far worse than anything it could do going forward.

that doesn't mean the CPC enjoys some privileged status of immunity from criticism of improper spending or behaviour.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.