|
Liberal govt falls (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
If an eastern Red Tory becomes leader (like so many would foolishly like), the Party would become completely brokerage. Again, it's not about right v. left, it's an institutional/structural issue. |
I hate to break it to you but the only way for the Conservatives to ever form a majority government would be for a Red Tory to lead the party. The truth of the matter is that Western Conservatism does not play east of Manitoba and there are more seats in the east then the west. Their only hope to govern (as they want to) would be to acheive significant growth in the east or drastically increase the population of the west. Since the latter is outside of their control the former must be their focus.
Keeping a westerner in as leader only hurts the Conservatives electorally. The problem of course is that if the Conservatives elect a leader from the east they will lose further lose support from the grassroots. The danger in that is it is not inconceivable that further loss of support from the grassroots could lead to the formation of another Reformesque grassroots (non-brokerage) party that will again divide the right. I do not envy the position the Conservatives currently find themselves in.
This is a shame (IMO) as the country needs to have two strong nationally supported parties in order to ensure good governance. Until this happens we will be locked in a power strugle between regional interests in which one region will be satisfied whilst the other four (identifying the regions as Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, The Atlantic Provinces, and The North.... of which the latter two are never likely to hold any meaningful sway) feel marginalized. |
|
|
| lexclu |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I'd say the Bloc has better odds of forming a govt than the NDP.
Then again, stranger things have happened in Canadian politics. (Anyone remember Bob Rae for Ontario premier? And how... interesting that yrs were) |
Agreed, and now the ontario fiscal situation has been finally sorted out, due mainly to very unpopular policies outlined by mike harris... The idea of the NDP running the fed. gov. is really really scary, especially given that now we are one the more fiscally responsible developed countries... with a very good plan to pay off the debt...
Liberals have far too much of a tarnished reputation, and its a shame that we are going to have any ridings being represented by them.... any vote for them is quite honestly saying that we, as canadians, don't mind the fact that our tax dollars, which is a considerable portion of our collective paycheques, are being used in an unfit manner... the canadian government refuses aid to some countries based on less corruption... a corrupt government refusing aid to another corrupt government on grounds of corruption.... irony...
harper is a douche... which is really unfortunate cause i think that a fiscally conservative, socially liberal government would be best... red tories as it were... and i think that the praries should be represented well this government.. to quell any seperatist feelings... the conservative government could and should be doing really well these days, and i think that they're not being received well mainly due to the fact that most people just don't like their leader... leadership capabilities aside, the person needs to be likable and personable...
imho
lex |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| quote: | Originally posted by lexclu
.
harper is a douche...
lex |
yup |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
By "win" I assume you mean "have the most MPs elected" - in other words, a plurality.
Orko's question relates to what would happen if there's another Lieberal plurality after the election, and then a subsequent no-confidence vote. In that case, the GG must try to form another government with the other MPs, including Harper and the CPC and/or the NDP, etc. - whatever combination could command the confidence (majority) of the House.
The interesting thing here is: we technically don't need an election. Harper, with NDP and Bloc support, could be PM TODAY. The GG need not dissolve Parliament. The problem, of course, is that those three parties have very different policies and *probably* couldn't form a stable government. Where the GG could cause trouble is calling an election instead of recognizing Harper as PM, based on her own political affiliations.
***
Most likely the next Parliament will look like this:
CPC: 113
Fibs: 109
Bloc: 61
NDP: 25
Fibs + NDP < 155
CPC + NDP < 155
Unless the CPC and Fibs form a "Grand Coalition" like the one just created in Germany, the Bloc will have the balance of power.
All the more reason to reform the federation (inc. getting rid of Liberal/NDP centralist policies), which would reduce separatism and the power of the Bloc. |
then your example of the Byng affair isn't relevant, because you're proving for a different situation than existed there, right?
The GG really isn't in a position to do anything that wouldn't normally follow anyway.
If the opposition parties join together, does it *really* matter if it's after an election or if it's at the GG's request to form a gov't? The end result is that the coalition will determine what happens.
I think we're kind of agreeing on scenarios...I'm taking issue with your implication that the GG, through her political affiliation, can provide any sort of meaningful aid to the Liberals for any significant length of time. The GG can't prevent a non-confidence vote and can't prevent a coalition among opposition parties from being formed.
I don't think repeated Liberal minority wins, followed by repeated non-confidence motions would happen...the people would be outraged. There would be IMMENSE political pressure for either the opposition parties to form a majority gov't, or for one/more of them to work with the Liberals to form a majority gov't.
I fail to see how the GG can ultimately "help" the Liberals :conf:
I also think your *really* optimistic about the number of seats the CPC will hold after this election...I think you may want to shift some of those over to the NDP, particularly out in BC ;) |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
So because Harper is a douche, it's reason enough to vote back in an proven incompetent, corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing government?
wow that makes so much sense.
"hey you know what! you can steal how ever much you want! 500 million? Sure! Don't worry about it...........but you better not be a douche!"
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ the reverse is true.
If one arrives at the conclusion that yes, members of the Liberal party stole money, but Martin and his current admin are the best option for Canada...why should you vote otherwise?
i.e. shouldn't the other parties have to tell me why I *should* vote for them...as opposed to why I shouldn't vote for Martin? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
If one arrives at the conclusion that yes, members of the Liberal party stole money, but Martin and his current admin are the best option for Canada...why should you vote otherwise? |
They stole money, and therefore are not the best option.
| quote: | | i.e. shouldn't the other parties have to tell me why I *should* vote for them...as opposed to why I shouldn't vote for Martin? |
As opposition parties, they should do both. They have to hold the government to account, and outline their alternative agendas.
In contrast, the governing party can run on its record (which in this case is poor, hence they resort to the fear tactics). |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
In contrast, the governing party can run on its record (which in this case is poor, hence they resort to the fear tactics). |
Poor is a relative and subjective term. There are many (seemingly the majority) that would disagree with your assessment. Moreover, and more damaging for the Conservatives, it would appear most Canadians do not identify the present government with the Sponsorship program or they believe the subject has been sufficiently addressed and dealt with. |
|
|
| lexclu |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
So because Harper is a douche, it's reason enough to vote back in an proven incompetent, corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing government?
wow that makes so much sense.
"hey you know what! you can steal how ever much you want! 500 million? Sure! Don't worry about it...........but you better not be a douche!"
:rolleyes: |
no harper is a douche and that is a reason why people won't vote for him... ideally one would hope that this is a meritocracy, and that the conservatives would be ushered into the house with a red carpet... sweeping the polls as their party is rel. free of bad press, other then of course harper talking about stupid things, like hearing french on airplanes... but in practice people will vote on the party leader, (which is wrong, as ideally you should be voting for your local mp) and all things being equal... harper is a less then likable individual...
i didn't point out which party anyone should vote for and more then anything i stated why i would not vote liberal... but harper from a strategic perspective has not lived up to par... remember the last no confidence vote.... why didn't the conservative party come across as a confident gov. in waiting... now... what efforts is he making to show why we should vote for him... if the entire campaign is pointing out the short comings of another government, isnt that, in itself a shortcoming...
wow! that makes sense... lol... no it doesn't nor does it make sense that the liberals are going to have a government again.. but yet again there is a disconnect between theory and practice...
lex |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
So because Harper is a douche, it's reason enough to vote back in an proven incompetent, corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing government?
wow that makes so much sense.
"hey you know what! you can steal how ever much you want! 500 million? Sure! Don't worry about it...........but you better not be a douche!"
:rolleyes: |
First things first.....you can't possibly say the Martin lead liberals are incompentent. They haven't even had a chance to lead the country.....a minority government ties his hands from doing anything.
If you think that any other party is not corrupt, lying, cheating, or stealing then you must live in a fairy tale world with pink bunnies and chocolate streets. Every government....ever....has had some sort of scandle involving members of their party.....and every government that will ever be elected will have scandles with people in the party. You don't hear about the corruption of the minority parties simply because it is not news worthy unless the majority party decides it will benefit them.
Like I said before, I don't know who I am voting for and I will be closing looking at the platforms of both the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Communist Party of Canada before I decide who I will vote for (even though I can't vote for the Communist party because they don't have a member in my riding).
It's important to get all the facts from all parties before you make an educated vote. If you are just going out and voting against a party then don't vote at all because you're not making an educated decision and that is worse then not voting at all. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
not making an educated decision and that is worse then not voting at all. |
BEST POINT EVER MADE IN A POLITICAL THREAD |
|
|
|
|
