# Vote of non-confidence!



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just heard the latest from the man who may be the pivotal force in the upcoming budget vote..

Here's a quick re-cap for anyone who hasn't been watching too closely:

The Martin Liberals are desperately trying to swing a deal with Jack Layton and the NDP in order to get the budget vote to pass. If they manage to work things out, here is what the numbers look like:

Liberals+NDP= 150 votes.

Conservatives+Bloc= 153 votes

There are three independants.

-Carrolyn Parrish (deposed Liberal) has said she will vote with the Liberals. But doesn't like it much.

-Dave Kilgour (left the Liberal party in disgust) has not said who he will vote with.

-Chuck Cadman (elected as an independant but always used to run as a Conservative) has _JUST_ announced that he has changed his mind due to overwhelming pressure from his consituents...and he will vote against the Liberals in order to trigger a non-confidence motion and bring down the government. 

IF everyone shows up on budget vote day (next week, I believe) and IF they all vote as they have said they would, with no abstentions...

Then the budget will fail and there will be an automatic motion of non-confidence in the Liberal minority government.

That means election time. Like it or not. Prepare yourselves.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The Martin Liberals are desperately trying to swing a deal with Jack Layton and the NDP in order to get the budget vote to pass.


Desperately?
Last I heard Mr Martin was not going to compromise his budget on the corporate tax cuts..


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The fact that he is even in close negotiations with Layton...whom he regularly ignores in Question Period...is a sure sign of desperation.

And without the NDP voting right alongside Martins Liberals the budget will be a no-go. Even with the NDP onside, it looks like it may not get passed. They are outnumbered.

But it will be close.

And Paul Martin has been pretty desperate on a whole number of fronts for some weeks now. He has just announced that he is cancelling his planned trip to Europe in May. Likely he did this because he already knows he will be on the campaign trail by then.

Heck...he's on it NOW!


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I admit, I'm just a nobody, but darnit aren't there more important things for Canadians to be concerned about than a little bit of corruption. If we were to snort and bring down the government every time $200mil went missing, we'd be at the polls all the time!!

They waste some money, we spend twice as much in real money trying to find out how much they waste never mind all the other lost productivity around the water cooler people jawing about it.

That was last year's money, let it go. Let's quit spending next year's real money chasing after what's already long gone. We know they did wrong, they know they did wrong and they know we know. 

Who are we going to elect? I can't remember a group that was less corrupt. We need a Prime Minister that can represent us on the world stage. Can any of those other dorks do it? Maybe the guy from Quebec, but they can't get enough seats - and that's too bad in my opinion since he's the only one that makes any damn sense and that's when he's talking French.

Seriously, I'm not that much of a *******, but I do think this scandal has been turned into a media circus and we have important issues that deserve our attention. I don't thing now or next February is the right time for an election. I think we should wait a couple of years and let things get evened out - get the border open, let our neighbours settle their war and get back to normal and so on.

There that feels better, margaret


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

*yup will do macnutt*

Get that barney rubble lookin goof out of office...man he makes me laugh when he talks all serious, what a wanker....he needs a kick in the nards by bam bam...

Paul Martin says "I have a moral obligation and responsibility to run Canada"....ummm nope you can just get lost....with the rest of your bandits...hmmm I knew this was going to happen when the election was held last year!...oh well...nuff said...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I started this thread so that we could all watch the process by which a non-confidence vote might (or might not) come about in the current Canadian political system. I thought we might be able to track the whole situation on a daily basis and learn something about how it works. This is a pivotal moment in Canadian politics, after all.

And...I was kind of hoping that the stronger opinions might be saved for one of the many other threads that are dealing with the current Liberal corruption scandal and it's resultant fallout.

But it's up to you guys. Say what you want. (I always do)


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

It looks like a there will be a non-confidence vote to bring down the government and I personally think that's a shame.

I think the politicians who are making the decisions are listening to the pollsters, not the people. When people get interrupted during dinner and asked a bunch of carefully worded questiions, their answers may not reveal what's really on their mind.

We all hate corruption, but there are worse things. Paul Martin may not look like a stateman, but among the current troop who will be up for election that I think would make a stateman is Gilles Duceppe and, no, I'm not a separatist - I'm living in Saskatchewan and I don't think Canada should be broken up. I'm judging by what I see and hear and if I think the guy is telling the truth and is believable.

The NDP won't make a federal government - that would require way too much change in how the country does things. The conservatives have been given lots of times to botch it too. 

You're right MacNutt, watching this unfold will be interesting. I didn't mean to derail your thread.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I had heard something on CTV news last night - or the night before? - and I'm not sure if I caught it correctly... but I think the reporter said that Martin might / could appoint some Conservatives to the Senate, giving himself a majority in Parliament... is this possible? Could/would the Conservatives turn down Senate appointments?

M


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

The Senate is separate from the House of Commons - appointing Conservatives to the Senate might win him some favours among Conservatives, but not any seats in the House. 

I didn't hear that report, but a move like that could backfire. At this point, I think it's pretty plain that there will be an election - it's just a question of whether Martin calls it or the conservatives call it. In the end, it's not the conservatives that he needs to win over, it's the rest of us. 

If there is a non-confidence vote, he just might get a lot of sympathy votes - a backlash of anger at the conservatives for disrupting our lives when the border stays closed and there are other things that need our attention.

It will be interesting.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I had heard something on CTV news last night - or the night before? - and I'm not sure if I caught it correctly... but I think the reporter said that Martin might / could appoint some Conservatives to the Senate, giving himself a majority in Parliament... is this possible? Could/would the Conservatives turn down Senate appointments?
> 
> M


that would be hilarious if it were true. if i were martin i would appoint steven harper to the senate. problem solved.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: hilarious.....somebody needs to do a movie. 

and actually Macnutt it does NOT automatically mean an election - the GG makes that call.

Adrienne - just your kinda girl eh.........

and there are a buncha sick puppies and Kilgour is in Africa...the fat lady IS looking on with interest however.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Looks like "joe who?" all over again. 
This will be interesting- Layton was really enjoying the spotlight today.
His moustache seems whiter under the glow of TV lighting. Very tommy shanks, IMO


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure I know all of the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure...but a professor of political science was on our local evening news tonight and he seemed to think that a minority government that had a clear majority of opposition parties openly defying it by voting against a budget would automatically cause a vote of non-confidence to be tabled. Or something like that.

Sounds about right to me.

We should note here that it is NOT just Stephen Harper who is threatening to defeat the Liberal budget. As a point of fact, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have actually been voting _WITH_...and, therefore_PROPPING UP_ the Liberal minority in recent Parliamentary votes. (some of the other opposition parties, noteably the Bloc, have been after Martin's head on a stick for some time now)

Harper is now saying that he will be withdrawing that support because Martin's Liberals have "lost the moral authority to govern". 

Which also sounds about right.

Should be an interesting moment. We are right on the brink of what may turn out to be an historic change in Canadian history. It bears watching closely. We may not see such a display again in our lifetimes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> and actually Macnutt it does NOT automatically mean an election - the GG makes that call.


A vote of non-confidence triggers the downfall of the governing party. The GG has the option (more of a responsibility) to allow the opposition the opportunity to form a government. If the opposition doesn't want to do this or can't do it, then an election is definately triggered.

If Martin tried to dissolve parliament himself, the Conservatives and Bloc could intervene and request to the GG that they form a government. This actually happened in Australia before.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think macdoc was saying that a majority opposition vote against the budget would not automatically trigger a motion of non-confidence.

My sources say that it will. Especially when that budget was tabled by a minority government.

And THAT vote of non-confidence would almost certainly result in an election call. No matter what else transpires. Especially in our current situation with the ruling Liberals under fire from a massive corruption scandal.

But we'd best break all of this cruel reality to macdoc rather gently. You know how he can be, when he's proved to be wrong in public. 

(gee...you'd think he'd be used to it by now.)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If the budget is not passed, there are two options.

a) let it stand as a vote of no confidence, which leads to either the opposition being given the opportunity to govern or an election.

b) immediately introduce a motion of confidence, which if it passes basically states that defeat of the budget was not intended as a vote of no confidence and the party in power remains in power.

Here's another interesting tidbit, if I remember correctly, if the budget passes and a motion of no confidence is tabled after, the government can actually replace it with a motion of confidence. Kind of a dirty trick, because it can lead to MPs voting yes when they mean to vote no, or vice versa. I am not 100% this can be done in our system, but I've heard it happens in similar systems.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Harper is now saying that he will be withdrawing that support because Martin's Liberals have "lost the moral authority to govern".


Why does that sound so "Bush-like"? 
Moral authority? Reminds me of the neo-cons always telling me that God is on their side (as long as He reflects their position)


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Only a bunch of eastern lawyers would spend $100 trying to find out where a nickle went missing in last weeks petty cash.

What a bunch of crap.

There's a whole country out here. Turn off the tv and walk outside - that "scandal" only exists in the media (and perhaps east of Winterpeg). The rest of us could care less. We've long since become resigned to the fact that governments waste money; we have to accept that along with the fact that we need governments to create any kind of order.

We've also accepted the fact that the type of personality that fosters a good politician also harbours a b*tard in his moral values (those others can thump bibles all they want, but I'm betting there's skeletons in all their closets) 

Take the measures out of the budget that were designed to help job creation - sure that's going to make us all feel better. Somebody wrote a cheque on out bank account that they shouldn't have, we paid once. Now they're spending more of our money to try to place blame for writing the cheque, and just in case we aren't paying attention, we're going to spend even more money having another half-assed election OR we're going to scuttle a budget that was looking good for job creation so we won't be making any money to pay for all this debt they've already dragged us into.

Makes perfect sense to me - NOT.

But then, who am I,

Margaret


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Posterboy is correct - the defeat of the budget is not necessarily a vote of non-confidence in the government. This hash was settled 40 years ago when Pearson was defeated on what is called a money bill. The next day the Liberals introduced and with the support of the Creditisites from Quebec passed a motion that said the defeat of the bill was not a matter of confidence and that the government did have the confidence of the house.

Martin's Liberals could take the same steps if the budget is defeated - introduce a motion of confidence and pray one of the other parties supports it.

Even if the government is defeated, as others have pointed out, the GG could ask Harper or one of the other party leaders to try to form a government. I doubt this would happen, but it could.

I do think, however, that the Conservatives ought to be cautious about defeating the budget. It contains very important provisions, most notably on off-shore natural resources and the sharing of gasoline tax revenues, that are crucial to munipalities and the Atlantic provinces. Defeating the budget will deny them access to revenues they have already made plans to spend.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just like to point out here that the Conservatives have, until recently, said that they will BACK the Martin Liberals on the budget...just as they have been backing them for months now while the other two opposition parties have been loudly saying that they would NOT back the Liberals.

It's only recently that Stephen Harper has said that he will "no longer prop up the Liberals" because they have lost the moral authority to govern. I'd say that grand theft of tax dollars and nationwide disgust at this unprecedented level of corruption is a sure sign that the Liberals have, indeed, lost the moral authority to govern.

Except, perhaps, in some parts of the Toronto area. Where they can do no wrong. Apparently.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Brainstrained said:


> I do think, however, that the Conservatives ought to be cautious about defeating the budget. It contains very important provisions, most notably on off-shore natural resources and the sharing of gasoline tax revenues, that are crucial to munipalities and the Atlantic provinces. Defeating the budget will deny them access to revenues they have already made plans to spend.


Defeating the budget will have significant effects on a whole bunch of people in this country who depend on the provisions of the budget. We're already two months late and if the budget isn't passed there will likely be lay-offs, cancelled contracts, etc before a new budget can be tabled and passed (October/November at the earliest). Many real people will be hurt by this, not to mention the economy.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Defeating the budget will have significant effects on a whole bunch of people in this country who depend on the provisions of the budget. We're already two months late and if the budget isn't passed there will likely be lay-offs, cancelled contracts, etc before a new budget can be tabled and passed (October/November at the earliest). Many real people will be hurt by this, not to mention the economy.



Seriously: Thanks for posting a legitimate response that adresses the effects of the current Liberal/Political turmoil on the day-to-day operations of Canada. 
There's been too much unbridled excitement by some around here who wish to see a bad situation for regular people go to much worse. You probably know who I mean.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> It's only recently that Stephen Harper has said that he will "no longer prop up the Liberals" because they have lost the moral authority to govern.


Apart from that "moral authority" joke from Stephen Harper, don't you think that Mr. Harper is trying to play politics by the polls? 
Really the party has no direction, no plan and they look like a bunch of hicks.

Here in Quebec they started to approch the Action democratique du Quebec - it made Mario's day as he said that would help Quebec separate from Canada as the Conservative seem friendly to that idea....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting how everyone here seems to be concentrating on Stephen Harper as the guy who will "Kill the budget".

The Conservatives are simply the last of all of the opposition parties who have said that they will vote against the Liberals on this. The NDP were saying that they would not support it months ago. They only quietened down when it looked like their 19 seat "no" vote wouldn't do much more than piss everyone else off.

The Bloc has been saying that they would not support Paul Martin on anything for some time now.

But it's the Conservatives who are suddenly the "bad guys" right? 

We should also note that the Conservatives have ALSO said that they will support all of the measures and agreements that are in this budget if they are elected.

Time, I think, to get another "big bad bogy-man".

Just a thought.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Get real MacNutt. Only the Conservatives can ensure the passage of the budget. The rest of the numbers do not add up. It's funny that when it came out Mr. Harper was all for it - I wonder why? Passing a similar bill after an election will leave the country in a deep hole for 6 months. It is utterly irresponsible. Pass the budget now and then call a vote of no-confidence if you want. Anything else is playing with other peoples lives and livelihoods.

This politicking over passage of the budget bill places what's best for Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party ahead of what is best for the country. It's as simple as that!


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> But it's the Conservatives who are suddenly the "bad guys" right?


Actually there is nothing sudden about that...  

Poll this weekend by Ipso/Reed?, gives the Cons 35% support but states the over 60% of Canadians DO NOT WANT an election and agree with Martins {pathetic} plea to wait for the Gomery final report...

Martin is tainted by the scandal, either by direct involvement or by willfull ignorange. He was the finance minister and the financial buck, while not stopping at his desk, crossed it.

The Conservatives time to rule may indeed be coming, but I doubt they will do their slimey {Ontario Perception, as I see it} appearance any good by going against the wishes of the population and forcing a vote.

Quite a gamble, Could propel the Cons into a majority government or form the first NDP minority government in 
Canadian hisory {propped up by liberal survivors hoping to cling to power}.

Cons problem is they have won most riding that will go to them. They won't gain in Québec {Bloq faces a similar limitation}. A few swing ridings will decide the next government, and it will be over before the wested polls close... again...

I don't like that either, but the nature of polarized politics is what it is...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think Harper was ever "all for it". But I did hear him say publicly that he would not be willing to bring down the government over the budget after Jack Layton first said that the collective opposition SHOULD do that. And the Bloc agreed.

That's when smilin Jack stepped back from the brink and got all quiet like. 

Now, things have changed. The shocking testimony has incensed the nation and caused Harper to re-think his previous support of the Liberals. Most likely due to some pretty clear input from his own constituents.

It was just this sort of input from consituents that made independant MP Chuck Cadman change his plan to vote with the Liberals. He now says that he too will call for a non confidence motion if the budget is defeated. And he will also vote against the budget.

Near as I can tell...that means that the Liberals are short by at least one vote to get it passed. (the Speaker's vote only counts in a tie)

This is a result of a concerted effort by ALL of the opposition parties, plus at least one of the independant MP's.

Like I said...time to get a new "bogeyman".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Like I said...time to get a new "bogeyman"." Actually, it's time to get a Prime Minister that will be able to carry forth a liberal social agenda and a conservative fiscal policy.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

we're talking about passing a f*cking budget here. since when is this about 'moral authority'?

and if by 'constituents', you mean harper is listening to his handlers and party strategists, then you would be right (no pun intended  ).


----------



## SunDog (Apr 19, 2005)

Thanks Macnut for that breakdown


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It seems as though Martin and Layton have found some way to reach an agreement on supporting the budget together.

It remains to be seen what will happen next. Liberal/NDP don't quite have enough numbers to pass that budget IF everyone on the opposition side shows up and IF they all vote the way they have indicated they will.

Vote of non-confidence and a new election? Or will it fizzle out at the last minute?

Stay tuned...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Vote of non-confidence and a new election? Or will it fizzle out at the last minute?
> 
> Stay tuned...


A few Conservative MPs are either going to get lost in the hallways or will quickly become quite ill. 

This way the Conservatives will avoid a snap election, but can still appease their supporters who want to take the Liberals down ASAP.

I still think we are looking at a September/October election.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Could be. That would certainly bring us back from the brink. But there is also an impending non confidence vote scheduled for mid may. And I really do think that the upcoming testimony in the Gomery inquiry will be so devastating for Martin and Co. that we will see an election much sooner than next winter. All of the testimony will be finished by mid june or thereabouts and we will all be able to make our own decisions about who did what, and who knew what, by then. 

Waiting six months will only give us another half year of lame duck bad management...my guess is that an election is just around the corner.

And it will be by "popular demand", as they say.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

According to today's Globe and Mail (no link - I got the paper version), there are at least two Conservative MPs who are -already - "quite ill" and their presence at any vote is questionable.

Seems we've been cursed... living in interesting times...

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lest we forget



> Because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Governor General usually exercises executive power only with and according to the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of the day. This gives the impression that it is the Prime Minister who holds these powers, though the Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867. However, it is the Governor General who must choose who actually forms the Government. By convention, this Government will be whoever has the "confidence" of the House of Commons, as elected by the people of Canada.
> 
> Usually an election gives a decisive result that clearly indicates whom the Governor General will invite to form HM government. If the result is unclear or very close she must decide who will be most likely to form a government that will maintain confidence. She will take into consideration any attempts at coalition, as well as the advice of many. If one party fails to form a successful government, she has the option of inviting another party to attempt this before deciding if calling a new election is necessary


This looks about right


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

To be quite frank, macdoc...I think you are grasping at straws here. Same as when PosterBoy claimed that the current Liberal-appointed senators could somehow resist the reforms that would give us a brand new "triple E" senate by voting against them, once a new government came to power.

Not bloody likely, in either case. Trust me on this.

The Governor General is a largely ceremonial post. And this current GG would be ill-advised to resist a popular revolt against a lame duck government that is under investigation for massive corruption. Especially since she was actually appointed to her position by that same corrupt government. (just as all those senators were) 

Now it would be a different story if this popular revolt loses steam and several of the opposition members take this moment to "get sick" as has been opined by several people here. And this might very well happen!

If that takes place, then this particular vote of non-confidence will fizzle and die. The Governor General (who only has about six months left in her Liberal appointed mandate) will not have to interrupt her lavish lifestyle in order to make any historic and earth shaking decisions about the direction of this country.

I'm bettin she's hoping for this particular outcome. Big Time! 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....the next scheduled period when a vote of non-confidence could be tabled is rapidly approaching. If we don't get a shot at a new government now, then we won't have to wait very long for the next opportunity!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Do you know how our system works? The senate holds just enough of the power to really screw things up. If the Conservatives put forth a bill that the Liberals don't like they'll be able to block it entirely or amend the hell out of it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Grasping at straws for what MacNutt - there's going to be an election...period. 
The GG has alot of power in a very tight situation and SHE - not you or anyone else decides and SHE has the power to do so PERIOD FULL STOP.

She might hand the baton to Harper. She might ask Martin to continue. If some 87% of the people of don't want an election now she might look at that and decide that's the right approach. It's HER call.

Personally lets have the election....said that already but you don't pay attention anyway.

Her post is there EXACTLY for this kind of situation and in the rare instance it occurs she has tremendous power and is answerable to no one.

Just as sick members, absent members, coalitions are in play, the GG role is another factor in the bouncing dice that is our current federal government.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Temper, temper, David. 

I never said she didn't have the power. What I DID say was that, if the groundswell of Parliament is _FOR_ an election...then we will have one. And Adrienne Clarkson will have no part in uisng her "special powers" (or her X-ray vision, for that matter) in order to prevent it. Won't happen.

If the situation is slightly "iffy" and the general thrust of the nation is to NOT have an election...then she will step in. THAT is the true extent of her abilities. No matter what you may have read or may think.

Same goes for all of those appointed senators, PosterBoy. If the clear will of the majority of sitting members of the House of Commons is to have an election...even if the Liberals don't want one...then the senators will simply rubber stamp it. They have NO real choice in the matter. That is the reality, the rest is just window dressing. No matter what you may have read or heard.

Whether we have an election over the budget...or whether it comes a bit later on...is the big question right now. I don't think very many of us honestly believe that Paul Martin will be able to hang on until the beginning of next year before calling us all back to the polls.

Apparently, Paul Martin doesn't believe this either. He was the first one to head out on the election campaign trail, after all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would say that if the GG ever tried to utilize her powers as the Queen's representative here in Canada to block an election (which I do NOT want at this time), I would support a movement to end her office along with the Senate. To be truthful, I feel that Canada should become a republic and cease ties with the monarchy and end our Constitutional Monarchy style of government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> I would say that if the GG ever tried to utilize her powers as the Queen's representative here in Canada to block an election (which I do NOT want at this time), I would support a movement to end her office along with the Senate. To be truthful, I feel that Canada should become a republic and cease ties with the monarchy and end our Constitutional Monarchy style of government.



:clap:

And that is all I have to say about that!


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Ahem!!

If I may. There are a lot of Canadians out here who think. A lot of Canadians who give a rats a$$ about *power* - just get the damn job done.

All this strategizing and maneuvering isn't getting the job done.

If Quebec really wants to leave, then leave already. The truth is they've been saying that for as long as I've been around and they haven't left yet and I don't think it's the handful of old farts at the top jockeying for power that made the difference, I think it's the grandmothers sitting on the front stoop who finally decide if they should stay or go.

In this current situation, there is so much hot air being spread around and so much phoney anxiety about this *scandal* - horsefeathers.

I say again - you guys just ignore me so I'll say it loud this time - *ONLY A BUNCH OF EASTERN LAWYERS WOULD SPEND A $100 OF MONEY THEY HAVEN'T EARNED YET TRYING TO PLACE BLAME FOR A NICKLE THAT WENT MISSING FROM LAST YEARS PETTY CASH!!* 

Get over it.

Have you noticed that real Canadians have lost *BILLIONS* of dollars over the border closing to live cattle - that includes not only the cattle producers, but all the periferal industries as well - feel free to insert any other industry that has been harmed by trade with out neighbours to the south.

Government is corrupt - all government is corrupt - for that matter, private enterprise is just as corrupt. For all your pontificating, you guys don't have an answer. None of the guys who've set themselves up to replace Martin have an answer. Guaranteed, no matter who forms the next government, whether they take office in June, 2005 or 4 years from now will be just as corrupt within a year. 

The only difference will be the next bunch might be better at hiding their tracks.

Sometimes you need to stop talking and listen. Margaret


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, you start this movement going eastward, and I shall do the same going westward. Meet you in Thunder Bay. TB or Bust!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

WinwinToo :clap: about the Adscam hype - the Star had a similar column that I could not post - Premium content. Get on with governing was the message.
•••

Dr. G most organizations have a formal method of dealing with ties and preventing needless voting cycles.

If 80-90% of the populace did not want an election would the GG not have a pretty clear mandate to attempt to bring the parties together to function as a government? 

We do not have specific election cycles as in the US where the houses are forced to get some sort of gov going because they CAN'T go to the polls willy nilly. They have to make deals to get anything passed.

Is it so outrageous for the office appointed to step into to locked circumstances to act in a similar manner to require the parties to try and govern for a limited time??

Martin has effectively called an election as PM.
The polls suggest the general populace does not want an election NOW.

Is it so out of line for the GG to insist that governing continue instead of politicking???

It will force some compromises instead of grandstanding and I suspect most Canadians want governance - want a budget ( that's a real serious issues with many complications the longer it goes on ) and want much of what is on the table ( even the Cons were for the budget provisions - Harper was praising it a while back  )

Is political wrangling to trump the governing of Canada......????
I would HOPE the GG encourages the latter and if need be uses her power to effect it - sometimes the "third party" factor can kick in - that's what mediators are for to take the direction on their shoulders so the conflicting elements can point and say - "it wasn't OUR decision but the mediators". - the GG happens to have the power to arbitrate as well. :clap:

The office is there to prevent gov lockups of this sort or to ameliorate the consequences. The lack of a budget is a severe consequence to the nation esepcially given the previous support for it. I'd say it warrants some action of some sort.

As I say I'm quite happy to get an election on now but I'm not sure it's a very good thing for the nation not to have a budget in place and to be rudderless for more time yet.

Sure wish an NDP/Lib coalition was doable in reality without being so tentative in nature.
A few votes her a few votes there and we have a locked up nation


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If 80-90% of the populace did not want an election would the GG not have a pretty clear mandate to attempt to bring the parties together to function as a government?" No, Macdoc, she has no mandate because she is not elected. Just like the Senate, she/they are able to go against the wishes of the elected representatives. It is the fact that she has certain powers, whether or not she would dare use them, that I resent. As well, take the top 25 wage earners here in ehMacLand and balance their total earners against the cost of her husband. We would lose. I certainly did NOT elect him or feel that he should have part in the pomp of her office. Don't get me started on the Senate and their perks and retirement packages. I am at a point where I am hoping that Memorial will do away with its mandatory retirement age of 65 to allow me to work a few extra years. We shall see.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

But, Dr. G, John Ralston Saul has done so much for banal philosophising! surely that must have something to do with the current malaise: ie: worth a few taxpayer bucks [especcially when your books don't sell]


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Should be called, or at least filed in a section for

"philosophy for hung-over weekends"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I say give the money spent on his role to feed the homeless in Ottawa. Give the money spent on the office of the GG to feed the homeless in TO. Give the money we waste on the Senate to feed the homeless in all of Canada. This is why I call myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Give the money being wasted on that *scandal* to the farmers in Western Canada who are losing their shirts over one lousy cow - then you'd be accomplishing something  

Margaret


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Margaret, the farmers should get some help out of government money, regardless of money being wasted. I personally do not have the strength or courage to face the daily problems our farmers, especially the small family owned and run farms, face every day.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

As a country, if we spent half as much hot air standing around the water cooler bitching about the mad cow crisis as we have about this nickle and dime corruption, it would have been solved by now. Once again, feel free to insert any other real problem that currently afflicts real Canadians.

But then it's happening outside of the *power circle* so it doesn't get noticed by the great thinkers of our society. 

This debate - in this thread - and in the media reminds me of meetings about projects where I used to work (a corrupt public corporation) The suits would get together with their charts and CYA documents and talk about this phase and that piece and every so often they would invite a stray minion in to give an opinion and those of us so blessed would sit there and wonder WTF they were talking about - was this the project we were slaving over?? Sure didn't sound like it. The code jockeys were talking to the guys with the clipboards on the loading dock - the people actually getting the work done - and the project that got pushed out the door resembled the one the suits congratulated themselves over in name only. The suits got new plaques for their walls and probably leather team jackets as well; the code jockeys and guys on the loading dock were lucky if they still had a job the next day. The suits took credit for the company running smoother; the rest of us carried on as usual.

Do the suits doing all this posturing think it makes them look like they're really running the country? Makes them look like idiots in my opinion. I'm only one, but there are 32 million of me.

Margaret


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Same goes for all of those appointed senators, PosterBoy. If the clear will of the majority of sitting members of the House of Commons is to have an election...even if the Liberals don't want one...then the senators will simply rubber stamp it. They have NO real choice in the matter.


The senate can't stop a motion in the house of commons (like, say, a no confidence motion), and I never said they could. What I did say is that they can reject (or amend the hell out of) any bill put forth in the commons. 

So please, stop putting words in my mouth, and start actually reading what I write.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G how does the assigned role of the GG differ from the assigned role of the judiciary.
BTW I agree on the senate BUT I see a moderating non political influence on the lower house (only under a very narrow set of circumstances ) a positive thing since we do not have the fixed election dates.
The US HAS to make deals because they CAN'T go to the electorate so gov HAS to continue.

It's a check and balance just as the judiciary is and I'm quite sure her available powers are very circumscribed but they do apply in this situation.

•••••

Somebody start a farm thread - there is an interesting development for farmer income as the carbon trading market is expanding.
The plight of farmers in Canada is a national disgrace ...but another thread someone.....

••••

My posts will be a bit frantic today with new Macs and decisions so if I appear sharp this is my one and only apology


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, it all depends upon the agenda of the president, the House of Representatives and the US Senate, and the makeup of the Supreme Court. Strangely enough, it is Justice Kennedy, nominated by Pres. Reagan, who seems to be the swing vote, much to the concern of the conservatives in the US.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

I don't understand where this is heading...The typical response is the the GG is the last vestage of the monarchy in Canada- an ambassador really- so no one REALLY would take her interference in political matters as binding. circumscribed, as MacDoc put it, is the word...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jst you are off base on this - there IS a lot of power vested in the GG for just these circumstances and while it HAS generally been ceremonial it is NOT political it rather for good governance to continue. The GG will generally abide by the PMs direction but does not have to and this is the first case where power might be exercised.

Here is a pretty good summary



> Parliament sits at "his or her pleasure", Royal Assent is necessary for all laws passed by Parliament, and as the Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General acts as commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces. Real political power, however, rests with the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament, and the provincial governments. Should the Governor General of Canada attempt to exercise any of these powers at her own personal discretion, it would likely result in a constitutional crisis and public outrage. The Governor General generally functions as a figurehead, who performs symbolic formal, ceremonial, and cultural duties.
> 
> The Governor General has the prime responsibility of ensuring that there is always a Prime Minister. After the resignation of a Prime Minister (which would take place, for example, after the Prime Minister's party had lost an election), the Governor General calls upon the leader of the party holding the majority of the seats in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister and to form a government. If no party holds a clear majority of the seats, then the Governor General must call upon an elected member who he or she believes would be able to command a majority in the House of Commons.
> 
> ...


http://www.answers.com/topic/governor-general-of-canada

more to come


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc's comment that "The GG will generally abide by the PMs direction but does not have to...." is the crucial point here. The power is there and it is technically unchecked unless the Queen herself intervenes.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Precisely why I said I was unclear where this was heading...Thanks for that MacDoc....
James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - unfortunately there is nthing to force parliament to govern as there is in the US where election fixing forces the issues. They gotta keep talking.

The only slight "out" we have is the GG attempting to make a working parliament - unlikely but if Martin resigned she could ask Harper instead of going to the electorate. Hence the bouncing dice.

This is one area where I'm unsure a fixed period is beneficial - just think if we HAD to deal with these clowns for another 3 years


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

While I agree that some of the polls show 80-90% of the electorate don't want an election yet, there have been others that show the number has fallen to 60% or less.

We should also note that most of these polls also show a large part of the voting public no longer trust Martin and certianly don't trust the Liberals.

It would be silly to cling to faint hope that the GG will make any move to block any major move towards an election based upon polling data, anyway.

As you have said, macdoc...it looks as though we are in for another election. The call may come after the budget vote, it may come after the non-confidence vote that is scheduled in mid may....or it may come because Paul Martin makes the decision himself.

Either way, the Governor General will simply go along with it. Watch and see.

(BTW...if the Liberals are removed from a power position...and this looks to be a certainty...then both the Senate and the office of the GG will be altered by the incoming Conservatives. Certainly we will be getting more for our money in the case of the former, and spending far less on the latter. Count on it.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We now have a new name for PM the PM out here in the west.

He is now and will be forevermore known as Crime Minister Paul Martin.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, that title should go not to Martin but to Jean C. If any PM was involved in crimes it was JC and not PM.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I like it! Got a nice ring to it, eh? But I would add this slight twist:

"_Crime Minister Jean Corruptien_"

Apropo, no?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What the heck?? I was trying to keep this thing on the rails...but now I'm reducing this important and, hopefully, educational thread into a rolling insult factory!   

My bad. Old habits die hard. Apologies all around. 

Now...back to the vote of non-confidence. 

We all await the results of next weeks budgetary vote. This will be the first opportunity to bring down the Liberal minority with a vote of non-confidence. And it will be a tight one by all accounts. Perhaps the closest and most important House of Commons vote that will occur in our lifetime.

If that one doesn't go...then the next one will come in mid may. What will be the mood of the nation four weeks from now? What will happen? Who will come out on top?

And who will carry the most votes and the most seats in the election that pretty much EVERYONE (except Paul Martin) thinks is coming in late spring?

Interesting times. Worth a close watch.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

For the sake of many thousands of people in this country, I sincerely hope the budget passes. Since the NDP have stated that they will only support the government until such a time that the budget is passed, I would expect that the Liberals would not survive a subsequent vote of no-confidence. But stranger things have happened and the electorate is rather unpredictable right now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The budget may well pass, JWoodgett. It is a terribly close vote and if only a few of the players feel the need to delay things a bit by not being there...then it will go through. ( I rather suspect that this will be the case, BTW)

After that, though...I think you can count on a vote of non-confidence that will result in an election call. In mid may. Then a federal election on June 18th or thereabouts.

One thing is almost certain...we WON'T be waiting until next februrary to get rid of (or re-elect) the Liberals. It will come a LOT sooner than that. No matter what Paul Martin wants.

Should be interesting to watch. History in the making.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Last night we saw what was, for all intents and purposes, a vote of non-confidence in the current government. Today, a majority of sitting members that (slightly) exceeds the number of governing party members plus their allies has told the PM rather firmly that he can no loger expect any co-operation on any vote.

That means that parliament is effectively deadlocked and the government of Canada is now paralysed. No further legislation can be enacted. Including a budget.

That means it's time go to the people and ask for a new nationwide vote of confidence in the form of a federal election. Simple as that.

Everything else is simply dithering and desperation. That sad sound you hear is the Liberals desperately clinging to power long after their best before date.

This particular government is now finished. Time for an election.

Might just be an historic one, at that.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macnutt, I'm listening - what is going to be different AFTER the Conservatives get elected - or the NDP or whoever it is you're pulling for (I don't care)?

The corruption was there loooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggg before Martin ever took office and is only now being pursued to discredit Cretien (no arguement from me on that score) But it was there before Cretien took office too from what I read (and from first hand experience working for government)

But nothing will change with a change of government.

A lot of money will be wasted on the election itself. A lot more money will be wasted on reorganization to give the appearance of "clearing house" (all those exiting bureaucrats will get a nice golden handshake - more money) and the next bunch will have their own devious way of wasting our money and will be better at hiding their tracks.

As I said I'm listening. How do you think and election is going to fix anything except deepen the hole in my pocketbook.

Thanks, Margaret


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Liberals trying to tailor their own demise around budget

By Alexander Panetta

OTTAWA (CP) _ The Liberals are manoeuvering to tailor their own demise around the federal budget, sources in the party indicated Wednesday.

The government is trying to forestall non-confidence votes until after a parliamentary showdown over the budget.

For a government under fire for allegations of a corruption and facing its possible demise, the strategy is obvious.

They would prefer to be defeated over their plans to fund health care, cities, seniors, day care, housing, education, the environment, the military and foreign aid _ and not in a confidence vote on corruption.

They could then spend an entire election campaign blaming the opposition for torpedoing initiatives in the budget.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Winwintoo....

I agree that corruption has been a part of many federal governments in the past. But I don't necessarily think that this situation has to continue.

One of the things that the grassroots movement that was known as Reform was originally about was to _clean up OTTAWA_. It was also dedicated to giving more power to the people of Canada by reforming the senate into a real elected body with real power.

The power to actively investigate and remove a government that was deeply corrupt. And, in having that power, to discourage the sort of criminal activities that we now see in the Liberals from ever even beginning in the first place.

That Reform Party is now the new Canadian Conservative Party. NOT the old PC's.

And if you want to see how committed they are to actually rooting out all of the rot and giving us a real democracy, then just watch and see. You might even want to vote for them in this upcoming election.

Beats the heck out of the same old same old. Which is just what you'll get with the NDP or Liberals.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"One of the things that the grassroots movement that was known as Reform was originally about was to clean up OTTAWA. It was also dedicated to giving more power to the people of Canada by reforming the senate into a real elected body with real power." This is true. However, these roots have now started to fade. There was a promise not to take Federal pensions, and not to move into the residence of the official opposition, and these were not abided to when they were the Reform Party. I don't get the sense that there are too many roots showing the heritage of the PCs under Mulroney either. Strange bedfellows, indeed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Time will tell how much those original ideas may have faded. But this is the ONLY party that ever had them, after all. Not the NDP. Certainly not the Liberals.

And if they fail us and do not work to clean up the mess in Ottawa once elected, then I will be their loudest and most outspoken critic.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> That Reform Party is now the new Canadian Conservative Party. NOT the old PC's.


You know, that's pretty much the main problem a lot of folks have with the new Conservative Party. :/


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, I would love to see either an abolished Senate, or an EEE Senate. I would take the Gov. Gen's office and send it down the Rideau Canal, although I have found Ms. Clarkson to be a most articulate GG. MP's pensions have always been a source of contention for me, rather than their salaries.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> You know, that's pretty much the main problem a lot of folks have with the new Conservative Party. :/


I was trying to think of the right words, you beat me to it.

Margaret


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It's their single biggest strength, really. They aren't a part of the "old guard". The old boys club.

And they are commited to reforming all that is bad and corrupt about our current Canadian political system. None of the other parties is even considering it.

If Canadians fear positive change so much that they run back into the embrace of a known batch of money-wasting thieves (Liberals) or to a party that is based upon ideas that have failed every place they've ever been tried (the NDP)...then God help us all.

We need change. And a real democracy, for the very first time. We need it NOW. More of the same old same old just will NOT do.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Christian Heritage Party isn't part of the old boys network either, nor the Natural Law party. Hey I know, let's vote for them because of that!

You'll have to do better than, "Their greatest strength is that they're different."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Christian Heritage Party isn't part of the old boys network either, nor the Natural Law party. Hey I know, let's vote for them because of that!
> 
> You'll have to do better than, "Their greatest strength is that they're different."


Neither is the Rhino party. And none of those tiny parties has a chance of running this country.

The Canadian Conservative Party does. Read em and weep.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115778886991_5/?hub=TopStories


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey, 'Nutt;

I never said that the Cons couldn't win, I just said that their policies suck. You seem to think that people who don't agree with those policies should vote for them because they're "different". Not a compelling argument, my friend.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Actually, as far as the Cons not being part of the old boys network, that's irrelevant, because the old boys, such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Fraser Institute or corporate old boys everywhere, would welcome them to the club immediately.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hey, 'Nutt;
> 
> I never said that the Cons couldn't win, I just said that their policies suck. You seem to think that people who don't agree with those policies should vote for them because they're "different". Not a compelling argument, my friend.


No...I said that you should vote for whomever you want to vote for. While saying that, I have noted that I will be voting for a party that is committed to cleaning up the corruption and giving us an enhanced democracy via an elected and effective and equal senate.

Now GA...about that "their policies SUCK" comment...ohhh, hang on. You are a major fan of the Greens and NDP aren't you? Parties with policies that "don't suck"?

Just policies that are either completely whacked (the Greens) or unsustainable nonsense that will drive an economy into the ground (the NDP). 

Never mind.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

No ... you said that the fact that the Cons weren't part of the old guard, old boys club was their greatest strength and offered that as a reason to vote for them.

I said ... not a good reason and hardly true anyway, since the corporate establishment will pee themselves with glee if the unsustainable standard bearers of trickle-down neo-conservative economics get in power. The Liberals were right of centre, economically too, just not enough for those who think of the current US economic disaster as something to be admired.

And if you think that the United States of North America was being market tested by Martin's Libs, well just give guys like Harper any real power and watch how fast the last vestiges of Canadian sovereignty slip away.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

The old boys club doesn't sit in the house of commons, they sit in the cubbyholes of the bureaucracy. That's where the real corruption is. That's where the money gets wasted.

How is changing the party in power going to change that?

Let's say the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives do get elected. They'll make a big show of cleaning house but what can they really do. 

Most of these old boys have been in "pseudo power" for 30 years or more. They can't just fire them. So they dig around and try to discredit them somehow and if they can't find anything, they'll make something up and then they'll have to go a level or two deeper in case the top level creep has some loyal followers who might raise a stink. And while all that is going on (in thinly veiled secrecy of course) the rest of the federal workforce is going to be frozen in their boots afraid to make a decision in fear of being next.

And then after clearing out the "bad guys" - and I agree it's worth the golden handshake to get rid of some of them - the purge won't stop there. They'll also purge any program or efficiency that that officer implemented or oversaw during his/her tenure - good or bad!

The healing takes lifetimes. The wounds to the lesser minions are never acknowledged and the cost in terms of morality is incalulable.

Sure people who work for the government are all assholes anyway so who cares right. 

Well, where would we be without them. Truth be told we wouldn't have a country. On the other hand, very little of the business of Canada actually gets done by those flunderbusses that sit in the House of Commons. 99.999999% of it (including the corruption) gets done by the civil servants. The disruption in the civil service that would follow an election that is based on the current scenerio would be a disaster.

Margaret


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> Just policies that are either completely whacked (the Greens) or unsustainable nonsense that will drive an economy into the ground (the NDP).


Macnutt, there is no need to go overboard. Just a reminder to reign in some of the over enthusiasm. Honey attracts more flies then water after all. (OK, maybe that isn't the best idiom so I'm trusting you'll take as it should be taken. Being an ass does not make people want to listen to you.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> Well, where would we be without them. Truth be told we wouldn't have a country. On the other hand, very little of the business of Canada actually gets done by those flunderbusses that sit in the House of Commons. 99.999999% of it (including the corruption) gets done by the civil servants. The disruption in the civil service that would follow an election that is based on the current scenerio would be a disaster.


Quite true, winwintoo.

I'm guessing you've seen a few episodes of "Yes, Minister."


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Now GA...about that "their policies SUCK" comment...ohhh, hang on. You are a major fan of the Greens and NDP aren't you? Parties with policies that "don't suck"?
> 
> Just policies that are either completely whacked (the Greens) or unsustainable nonsense that will drive an economy into the ground (the NDP).


Yes, but if they will promise to be "rid the government of corruption", they are worth voting for, are they not. 
The country's in pretty good shape, all things considered.....what else will the Cons do to make it better? More low-cost housing? Better health care? Programs for the homeless? Better education infrastructure? Less policy influence by big business? Keep our independance from American foreign policy?
Help me on this......I still can't geet a good feeling about the Cons and Harper. Maybe you could give me something more than "a commitment to get rid of corruption" as a reason to persuade me to vote for a change and take a chance that issues that Liberals (and I) support won't go down the sewer. I'm looking for fresh dialogue, not the same old stale rhetoric to help persuade me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Che - let him lipflap he and others like him are the Libs best friends. 

Funny he forgets the next best economy to Canada is Australia with its Labour Party now on their 4th term. The Labour Party in England now on the third term and Mexico now very likely to elect a strong leftist President to go along with the others in central and South America.

The left has gotten smart about fiscal responsibility.
Too bad the right hasn't gotten off the tax cut mantra.
I see all John Tory had to say today was .........well they could have cut taxes .........people want good services at a reasonable tax rate.... like we have in Mississauga 

Let him flap......


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Peter Scharman said:


> Yes, but if they will promise to be "rid the government of corruption", they are worth voting for, are they not.
> The country's in pretty good shape, all things considered.....what else will the Cons do to make it better? More low-cost housing? Better health care? Programs for the homeless? Better education infrastructure? Less policy influence by big business? Keep our independance from American foreign policy?
> Help me on this......


"More low cost housing?"-why not just set things up so people could buy their own housing at the going rate? Increase the opportunities and allow an economic boom (like the one that's going on in the west under CONSERVATIVE governments) to raise all of us up a notch or two.

Or...you could consign a bunch of able bodied Canadians to the semi-ghetto of "low cost housing" while squashing growth with high taxes and massive beuracracies. Guess what? "The Projects" in our neighbor to the south were supposed to provide low cost housing to a whole bunch of people. All they ended up with were high-rise slums. Better to provide them with lots of opportunities in a vibrant economy instead. Don't give someone money...give them a job, instead. They will have far more self-respect in the long run.

"Better heath care"?-How about _SUSTAINABLE_ health care? We sure don't have that now! Health care budgets in pretty much all of the provinces are eating up almost fifty per cent of the total revenue...and growing _FAST_ . That is NOT sustainable. Especially when you think about the looming demographic bomb that is about to go off when the baby boom generation begins to sicken with the maladies of old age. Scary canary.

Paul Martin and the Liberals have no solution for this at all. They just want to throw more money at it. Or pretend to. (We should also note here that Paul Martin only uses private medical clinics. While loudly condemning them in public.)

"Programs for the homeless"?-see my first reply under "low cost housing".

"Better educational infrastructure"?-This is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one. Talk to your local MLA if you want action on this. But you'd also better ask that MLA how the heck they are going to be able to provide ANY funding for education when the health care system is about to eat the budget down to the bone. Remember, under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien the Liberals downloaded the costs for the health care system onto the backs of the Provinces. Previously, they used to pay 50%. Now the federal government pays about 18% of the total.

As for the current prosperity of Canada? The good economic health we seem to be enjoying, here on the brink of the retirement of the largest and richest contingent of our population?

Ask yourself if the GST and Free Trade might not have had SOMETHING to do with all of that. Those were CONSERVATIVE policies, not Liberal ones. Ask yourself why the Liberals have not cancelled these programs like they promised they would before we elected them. (in fact, they have expanded them)

Bottom line here? Think VERY hard before you cast your vote. Buy the steak...not the sizzle.

Want more of the same? Then vote Liberal. want policies that look good on the surface, but will be destructive to the economy? Then vote NDP.

Want to see Ottawa cleaned up? Want to see the ALL crooks (not just their hapless staff members) tossed into jail as an example to future governments? Want to see a real democracy in Canada for a change?

Then vote Conservative.

Your choice. Make it a good one.


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Two Conservative MPs under-going cancer treatment (one terminal) showed up to the planned attempt to bring down the government last night. The one MP in terminal condition showed up in Ottawa against the advice of his doctor. That is ridiculous. Now we have MPs risking their lives just to get to Ottawa to fail at defeating the government. First we had name calling, then racial comments, now we have "Conservative superheroes".

The Liberals and the Conservatives really need to learn some manners before we have Darell Stinston trying to start a fist-fight again.

If I had to vote today I would not even show up to the polls.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The left has gotten smart about fiscal responsibility.
> ..


Not in Canada they haven't. Tony Blair has accepted modern economic theory, while the NDP have rejected this.

You still haven't answer my question regarding the NDP policy of keeping interest rates low regardless of what is happening in the economy. 

The NDP would be an economic disaster for Canada.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mike Y said:


> If I had to vote today I would not even show up to the polls.


You know...I just keep on hearing this very same sentiment from some of my buddies in Ontario. The ones whom I've been jabbing away at for voting Liberal so many times in the past.

All of them seem to be completely disgusted by the shocking revelations about the corruption inside the federal Liberal Party. Some of them are still going to vote in this next election...but are talking among themselves about how to "spoil their ballots". Many of the rest are not planning to vote at all. 

Cool. Stick with this plan, guys. You'll be doing the whole country a favor if you do. 

Especially considering how very close the vote was in some of the ridings, in the last election. 

Particularly in Ontario.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So ONLY the NDP are left??.....funny the strength of the LIberals - traditionally considered on the left side of the spectrum as have other parties *in power* has been fiscal responsibility.

Taking an interest rate policy in isolation from other economic factors such as supression of speculation which tends to lead to the need for interest rate increases to damp the boom bust cycle.

The evidence on the road would show the right wingers in the US THE most profligate time after time after time including now to an historic level.

BTW anyone catch the span between the CTV poll and Decima poll.........Decima with Libs at 37% - NO ONE can call the electorate right now.



> *Opinion polls give mixed picture on Canada voting*
> 
> Wed May 11, 2005 8:26 AM GMT-04:00
> TORONTO (Reuters) - A day after Canada's Liberal minority government lost a key censure vote in Parliament, two polls released on Wednesday gave contradictory views on how Canadians would vote if an election is called.
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So ONLY the NDP are left??.....funny the strength of the LIberals - traditionally considered on the left side of the spectrum as have other parties in power has been fiscal responsibility.
> 
> Taking an interest rate policy in isolation from other economic factors such as supression of speculation which tends to lead to the need for interest rate increases to damp the boom bust cycle.


I consider the Liberals to be Centrist. They have both right and left elements in their platform. Economically speaking, they have accepted modern economic theory, much like Tony Blair.

The NDP however..... Same old, same old. They will never dump their close ties to Labour they way the Labour party has done in England. I imagine it will take another half century before they accept basic economics. 

You can't take an economic policy in isolation. The whole design of modern economic theory is to avoid the boom bust cycle. In the last 25 years, this has served North America's economy well. The down cycles have been relatively tame.

A policy of low interest rates in today's economic environment would lead to inflation and a big boom, followed by a greater bust. Our economy is essentially at full capacity. So, we can expect interest rate increases to keep it from going beyond capacity. But under the NDP.....


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Cool. Stick with this plan, guys. You'll be doing the whole country a favor if you do.
> Especially considering how very close the vote was in some of the ridings, in the last election.
> Particularly in Ontario.


Yes yes... I threaten not to vote every election... maybe it has become a figure of speech.  

This random 'don't show up to the polls' threat comes from not the views of the political parties but their attitudes. I am sick and tired of the the Liberals and the Conservatives taking absolutely opportunity to bash each other with insults, accusations with no proof, and cheap blows. The NDP and the Bloc also are having a good old time with their useless comments.

In the past view weeks I have not heard ANY party speak of something intelligent (maybe that is because I do not read/watch the news enough or that intelligent comments are being filtered by the insults).

MPs get paid around $150 000 a year. I would absolutely love for one of them to stand up and anounce they are paying back for every week of useless arguments.

Vote on the budget now! Confidence or non-confidence... I do not care. But I sure as heck hope that if an election is called we do not end up in the same situation. Who knows... maybe this government has a better chance of working than the next minority that we may see in the next few weeks.

My two cents.


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

Aren't these people supposed to be governing our country instead of bickering?

Yipee - another election and another minority government...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are still taking it in isolation and you avoid Australia entirely. You have ZERO basis upon which to judge how the Federal NDP would approach the current fiscal situation. The NDP has very much become the voice of the urban not the tradtional labour market and there has been many contretemps with the powers in the big unions.

Don't confuse Layton with your NDP in BC - different animals.

BTW how do you square productivity growth being highest when real tax rates are highest. There ARE alternative approaches to damping swings - France takes a radically different approach with reasonable if not sterling success tho life style in Europe for workers is NOTABLY better.

I'm not being an advocate here but an observer.
Canada has done well in the past with Liberal minorities and NDP input.
If Labour in much more left/union oriented nations like Britain and Australia ( good articles in the Economist this month on the latter ) - then you have no basis to think it would be otherwise here.

Corporate welfare can be and in some cases IS as insidious as any other set of destructive approachs.

BTW does anyone know where the Feds got Ontario as the 5th largest economy in the world - I assume it must be based on a per capita basis but that's quite a claim.  ( this was inpart of the "gap" discussions )


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You are still taking it in isolation and you avoid Australia entirely. You have ZERO basis upon which to judge how the Federal NDP would approach the current fiscal situation. The NDP has very much become the voice of the urban not the tradtional labour market and there has been many contretemps with the powers in the big unions.


I am not familiar with Australia's situation. I have lots of basis to judge the federal NDP. The statement about keeping interest rates low is in their platform. 



MacDoc said:


> BTW how do you square productivity growth being highest when real tax rates are highest. There ARE alternative approaches to damping swings - France takes a radically different approach with reasonable if not sterling success tho life style in Europe for workers is NOTABLY better.


I am not sure about what situation you are refering to here. 



MacDoc said:


> If Labour in much more left/union oriented nations like Britain and Australia ( good articles in the Economist this month on the latter ) - then you have no basis to think it would be otherwise here.


Off the top of my head, I think the unionization rate in Canada is higher than Britain.



MacDoc said:


> Corporate welfare can be and in some cases IS as insidious as any other set of destructive approachs.


I agree. I don't like corporate welfare either. This is something the Liberals have been doing for some time. The NDP likes to have their own pet union projects (e.g. fast ferries in BC). Same idea as corporate welfare.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> You are still taking it in isolation and you avoid Australia entirely. You have ZERO basis upon which to judge how the Federal NDP would approach the current fiscal situation. The NDP has very much become the voice of the urban not the tradtional labour market and there has been many contretemps with the powers in the big unions.
> 
> Don't confuse Layton with your NDP in BC - different animals.
> 
> ...


Oh STOP it macdoc...you are killing me! I'm laughing so hard I can't eat my dinner. 

Australia is currently governed by a Conservative government, is it not?

The NDP in Canada is completely out of ideas, and still beholden to Big Labour, is it not? And STILL has no real hope of ever attaining majority status. Correct?

The Provincial NDP governments in Canada have been an unmitigated disaster, have they not?

France is deeply in debt and has some of the most unsustainable social programs in all of the EU. By ALL accounts. Hardly a good example of how well leftist ideals "can work in the modern world". Plus, they now have a rapidly growing private medical sector that is meeting all of their health care needs and has totally eliminated waiting lists in that country. Just as the ALL of the rest of the European countries have done. Not too terribly "left" there, eh?  

And, as Vandave et al have noted here, today's modern left/labour parties all over the world are rapidly modifying their previous hardline ideals and are now adopting policies that were strictly confined to the conservative right, just a few years ago. This is a point of fact. It's also an easily observable fact. Have a look for yourself.

Especially in Britain and Australia...the examples you provided in your previous post. Ask yourself if Australian or British labour parties are anywhere NEAR as "left" as they once were? Or have they now moved into policy territory that was always occupied by the conservative right? In a big way?

You might also want to ask yourself why this is happening pretty much EVERYWHERE these days. (Might help you to deal with the inevitable.) 

"Centering to the RIGHT", it seems. The term that you, yourself, coined here on this forum macdoc. 

Try to deal with it. Try to accept and embrace it...just as all of the leftish parties have. The rest of us will try to be gentle with you, while you make this difficult transition to reality. 

Promise.


----------

