|
The Canadian politics thread (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nacarter |
Harper pretty much tanked the budget in order to get it defeated. The Cons and NDP were negotiating right up until the committee announced the they were finding the Cons in contempt of parliament. All of a sudden the negotiations stop and it's 'our way or the highway' time for the budget. Since nothing in it pleased anybody (corporate Canada isn't too thrilled with Harper's budget either), it was defeated. From the Cons point of view they can still try and claim that the opposition is forcing an election by defeating the budget. If the contempt of parliament charge was tabled in the Commons, they can't make that claim, since the non-confidence motion is the direct result of a Con action. With the budget causing the defeat of the government, any action coming from the contempt of parliament charge dies on the order paper.
I do love how Ignatieff is wording the confidence motion on Friday. He's making sure that the contempt of parliament charge is mentioned. It's a great way to keep the Cons from sidestepping the issue.
Frankly, I'd like to see the Governor-General have some balls and deny Harper an election. Under the constitution, he does have the right to see if any of the opposition leaders have the ability to form a functional coalition. Considering that another minority government is highly likely in the event of an election, the GG really should put a coalition on the table as an option. |
|
|
| The Potter |
God, I'm enraged! :whip: The arrogance of Harper seems to know no bounds. A local Tory parliamentary candidate even had the gall to leave me a phone message a second ago, mentioning that the opposition were going to cost the country nearly half a billion dollars. It's his hissy fit that is going make this budget even harder to balance, and we're going to have to bear the financial cost of his selfish behaviour - if only I could help vote his sorry ass out of office.
Is he deluded, or something? What makes him think he can behave like a dictator? The people spoke in the last election. In a democracy, their will should be respected. If the people he serves wanted him to have an overall majority, then that would have been reflected in the votes. Instead, he is riding roughshod over the electorate's desires, by refusing to negotiate with other representatives and engage in consensus politics, which is the only mandate that he has. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| I find it funny that people are all over the costs of these coming elections. If they truly cared about wasting money then why don’t they ask about the billions that is about to be spent on fighter jets? Or how about billions that Harper is planning to spend on building more prisons? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I find it funny that people are all over the costs of these coming elections. If they truly cared about wasting money then why don’t they ask about the billions that is about to be spent on fighter jets? Or how about billions that Harper is planning to spend on building more prisons? |
or even better...why don't they get their butts out to the voting booths and make sure a majority government is formed so we can have four years of stability. |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
lets hear what jayx1 has to say about this. |
That's what I opened this thread for! |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
That's what I opened this thread for! |
we were both disappointed by him.
come out, come out wherever you are jay! |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
If they truly cared about wasting money then why don’t they ask about the billions that is about to be spent on fighter jets? Or how about billions that Harper is planning to spend on building more prisons? |
+1. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Frankly, I'd like to see the Governor-General have some balls and deny Harper an election. Under the constitution, he does have the right to see if any of the opposition leaders have the ability to form a functional coalition. Considering that another minority government is highly likely in the event of an election, the GG really should put a coalition on the table as an option. |
you'd be happy with the most undemocratic option? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
come out, come out wherever you are jay! |
He is too busy stopping that gravy train... |
|
|
| nacarter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
you'd be happy with the most undemocratic option? |
In what way would it be undemocratic? There is no law in Canada that says the winning party in an election automatically forms the government. That only occurs when the winning party wins a MAJORITY of the seats. That's not the case here. The 65% of Canadians that did not vote for the conservatives could just as easily say that allowing a party with only 35% of the popular vote govern is undemocratic.
On a related note, I did some number crunching and theoretically, a party could have 65-70% of the popular vote and still not gain enough seats for a majority. A party could dominate a region (e.g. Western Canada) and win 40-45% of the seats and garnering 100% of the vote in their winning ridings. Meanwhile, they lose the remaining seats by finishing second with 30-35% in each riding. It's an interesting quirk of the first past the post system.
The Tories are almost in such a position. Yes, their numbers are up about 10 percent, but it's consolidating stronghold positions in the West. Is it really noteworthy if they're up 10% in ridings where they already have 65-70% support? They're down in Quebec, down in Atlantic Canada, and static in Ontario. I have trouble figuring out where they think they can steal enough seats for a majority. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
In what way would it be undemocratic? There is no law in Canada that says the winning party in an election automatically forms the government. That only occurs when the winning party wins a MAJORITY of the seats. That's not the case here. The 65% of Canadians that did not vote for the conservatives could just as easily say that allowing a party with only 35% of the popular vote govern is undemocratic. |
It is also against parliamentary conventions that has been established... protocol in which governments are formed, and widely accepted by majority of Canadians. I mean, you can get PMs in this system that isn't even elected as PM by popular vote. (see Paul Martin)
So the convention is that the party that gets most seat gets to form the government and picks a PM (who usually is the party leader), regardless whether they have a majority of seats or not.
Only reason that I'd accept GG refusing the Cons (or any minority govt for that matter) and asking the opposition to form the govt is if the Cons win the next election and forms govt, and shortly after the opposition parties force another election, and the Cons win another minority govt but the opposition parties will force another election. This is to break the continuous deadlock, and to get a functional govt going.
Otherwise I think GG exercising his power is too big of a precedent to set. Might as well have direct rule then.
| quote: |
On a related note, I did some number crunching and theoretically, a party could have 65-70% of the popular vote and still not gain enough seats for a majority. A party could dominate a region (e.g. Western Canada) and win 40-45% of the seats and garnering 100% of the vote in their winning ridings. Meanwhile, they lose the remaining seats by finishing second with 30-35% in each riding. It's an interesting quirk of the first past the post system. |
Eh. Electoral system reform is another topic. ;)
| quote: |
The Tories are almost in such a position. Yes, their numbers are up about 10 percent, but it's consolidating stronghold positions in the West. Is it really noteworthy if they're up 10% in ridings where they already have 65-70% support? They're down in Quebec, down in Atlantic Canada, and static in Ontario. I have trouble figuring out where they think they can steal enough seats for a majority. |
Anything can change. I probably would not vote Cons next election but I don't see much of an alternative. Iggy inspires as much confidence as Dion. Taliban Jack don't count and I would actually vote for Duceppe if he wasn't Bloc.
There's a lot of room for all parties to screw up. Though I'm curious to what kind of Cons are evil fearmongering campaign the Libs are going to throw up.
Actually, I think I might just go to voting station to abstain my vote. |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I'm just sick of the Harper Conservatives and their constant attack ads. |
+1 Yes, I get Iggy didn't come back for me. Enough with the damn ads already!
You have to admit though... the Cons media machine has grown very strong and unfortunately, quite effective as well. Looks like they've learned a few things from their counterparts south of the border. The Libs and NDP have a lot of catching up to do. |
|
|
|
|
