Harper's long walk off a short pier?

[Brad Sallows]

How is it possible to be accused of demonizing the Liberals?  Their current leader organized a bloodless coup to overthrow his predecessor; said leader was then so very magnanimous in victory toward party members such as the one in Hamilton, and I have no doubt his ascendancy to power did not prompt other members to not run in the subsequent election - an assuredly necessary election which was certainly not called opportunistically before a certain inquiry was due to report in the hopes a majority could be won so aforementioned inquiry could be neutered, or so that a certain opposing party would have to run without the benefit of a policy convention; there were no parachute candidates appointed by decree over the objections of local riding associations; clear albeit conventionally unprecedented expressions of non-confidence were not ignored while the party in government sought any means to stall until a proper vote count could be assured; the party establishment of the provincial party wing in which the leader was prominent for several decades has not been implicated in an overwhelmingly shocking misuse of public funds...

Need I go on?

 

[Zipper]

Lets just say that the Liberal's deserve to be removed, and soon.

And that the conservatives need to come up with a complete policy package that will be accepted by the moderate majority of Canadians.

Until that point, we're stuck with the lies, smoke screens, and buy offs.

The only glimmer of hope that I see from this last week of screw ball politics is that more people are going to be accepting of independent candidates and will realize there are other alternatives to the Ol'three parties.

 

[oyaguy]

That more aptly applies to the Liberals than Conservatives.  In the last elections I distinctly remember the Conservatives and The Alliance before them trying to sell themselves on their merits.  The liberals on the other would use baseless attacks to scare the voters, the best being (paraphrased) "Stephen Harper and the Conservative are bad for this country cause they want to spend more on the military"  A few months later we get the fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, and all of a sudden people realize we should spend more on the military and bam the liberals announce they are going to spend more on the military. 

About demonizing or not demonizing whomever, it is not an argument on whether these people deserve to be demonized or not. it's a question on the utility of demonizing your opponents. The Liberals keep at it because it works, the Conservatives should stop because its not working or working well enough. The Conservatives should start presenting themselves to the public as a positive force in politics, not as the "other mudslinging party".

And that the conservatives need to come up with a complete policy package that will be accepted by the moderate majority of Canadians.

Exactly Mr. Zipper. The Conservatives need to get proactive. Stephen Harper should stop using every media opportunity  presented to him to point out the complete obvious {That the Liberals should be thrown out of government, thank you Mr. Harper, didn't know you were campaigning for Auditor General}, and explain to Canadians that the Conservative Party is in fact a viable option.

 

[FredDaHead]

trying to say the Liberals are somehow not legitimate {Whatever your politics, they were duly elected with the most seats}, and calling Belinda Stronach a whore and a prostitute {turncoat, traitor, possibly unprincipled I can see}

They were legitimate until a few weeks ago. They aren't anymore: they had lost a first no-confidence vote, (I don't remember the details) but declared it null. I have no doubt they would have done the exact same thing had they lost the budget vote: this time, they would have said the no-confidence thing only applied to the actual budget (which the conservatives decided to support) and the ammendment didn't count. What do you think will happen after the Gomery report is published (if ever)? Martin will say his promise to launch elections after Gomery were only true "if Gomery says every single Liberal is a crook" or something like that, and he'll stay in power the rest of his original term.

As for Belinda Stronach, she is a traitor. Turning against your party before a big vote, because you were offered something better on the other side? That reeks of lack of ethics.
She took advantage of the situation, and one has to admire her ambition, but it does go a long way into showing how little the Liberals care about how the country is run; they just want power.
What if a soldier decided, just before a major offensive, that his country just isn't right for him anymore, and the next thing you'd know, he'd show up on the other side commanding a regiment?

 

[oyaguy]

They were legitimate until a few weeks ago. They aren't anymore: they had lost a first no-confidence vote, (I don't remember the details)

Actually, no. The way parliamentary politics works is the government decides what is and isn't a confidence motion. This might seem wrong to some people, but that's how it works. The caveat for this though, is any money bills or the throne speech, is a confidence motion.

On May 10, the Conservatives pushed through a vote on a motion saying the government should resign. The motion passed, and the speaker sent the motion to committee {where it's going to die} the government didn't resign and, no election was called.

Why?

It comes back to parliamentary politics. The only thing the House of Commons is obliged to do  is convene once a year, pass their budgets, with an election every five years at the very least. Most of the rest is based on tradition, convention, and all the other unwritten rules. Some might say these traditions, conventions and unwritten rules are simply that. A better way of looking at it all, is as parts of an unwritten constitution; something you don't mess around with except with a lot of public scrutiny, debate, and possibly referenda. Again, some might say it doesn't matter if it isn't written down, but unwritten rules are just as important as the written ones.

Hence, the Liberals called the Conservative motion correctly, as a "procedural matter" because it wasn't a confidence motion. The motion had nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the Constitution. Stephen Harper is trying to mess around with the rules that govern our parliamentary democracy all in the name of politics. Harper's later comments about there being a "constitutional crisis"  and how the Governor General should step in, were untrue, and irresponsible.

So while the rules and the Constitution can change, Stephen Harper shouldn't be doing so in the name of bringing the Conservatives to power.

As for Belinda Stronach...  [Edited for Brevity]
What if a soldier decided, just before a major offensive, that his country just isn't right for him anymore, and the next thing you'd know, he'd show up on the other side commanding a regiment?

The difference between Belinda Stronach's allegiance to the Conservative Party, and a soldier's to his or her Country, are orders of magnitude in difference. There is simply no comparing the two. One is a matter of politics the other is High Treason. If anyone believes that Belinda Stronach's loyalty to the Conservative Party is such that she should be executed or imprisoned at the earliest opportunity, well I guess the comparison works then.  Otherwise, find a better analogy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How soon the history is rewritten to favour the victor.

An expression of non-confidence is what it is, regardless how a government manoeuvres to try to delay or ignore it.

 

[The_Falcon]

Actually, no. The way parliamentary politics works is the government decides what is and isn't a confidence motion. This might seem wrong to some people, but that's how it works. The caveat for this though, is any money bills or the throne speech, is a confidence motion.

Right   :   so, when the majorityof the HofC says we have no confidence in you or your government Mr PM, and they turn around and say well screw you your motion doesn't count because we say so, that line of thinking seems inherently dangerous to me. But what do I know?  I am just a taxpayer.  

 

[Acorn]

How soon the history is rewritten to favour the victor.

An expression of non-confidence is what it is, regardless how a government manoeuvres to try to delay or ignore it.

I thought you knew Parliamentary procedure better than that Brad.

Acorn

 

[FredDaHead]

Right   :   so, when the majorityof the HofC says we have no confidence in you or your government Mr PM, and they turn around and say well screw you your motion doesn't count because we say so, seems inherently dangerous.  

Amen, brother.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

From my perspective the whole thing was dirty.

First Paul Martin broke his own rule and cancelled opposition days delaying the intended informal non-confidence vote while giving him time to fly around the country and give away taxpayer dollars

Then, the PC/Bloc finally do win an informal vote of non-confidence and instead of the Liberal Government immediately moving to a formal vote of confidence which would've been the ethical thing to do, they intentionally delay the vote for a week and go about the solicitation of at least two PC members in order to the move the numbers in their favour.

Bottom Line:  If you look in the dictionary under "morally bankrupt", you'll find a Liberal Party Logo.  Harper may not be charismatic and I may not agree with agree some of his social beliefs (which in terms of policy would've been up for debate in an election), but I certainly believe the guy is a straight shooter with a better moral compass than anyone in the Liberal Cabinet, and would've been the right guy to clean up Ottawa (wihich may be about as corrupt a capital as you'll find outside the third world).

It is truly a sad state of affairs that the myopia under which oyaguy operates is prevelant enough in this country that we keep electing these theives....




Matthew. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I thought you knew Parliamentary procedure better than that Brad.

(I don't.)  The problem as I see it is that much of the way Parliament conducts business is underpinned by the assumption that the Members are honourable gentlefolk and therefore general guidelines and good sense will do.  In my view, it was manifestly clear the Opposition wanted to test confidence in the Government and just as clear the Government sought any means at its disposal to avoid such a question being called.

I would prefer Government to adhere to some simple ethical principles, such as "If you knew about it and you were there..."

 

[dutchie]

First off, I like Harper. I agree with 95% of his policies, I think he's honest, has integrity, and I don't believe he has a hidden agenda. Of course, I have voted Conservative in every Federal Election since I could vote, so my vote was virtually assured anyhow. What he lacks, as has been mentioned, is charisma and 'like-ability'. This is especially glaring in non-Conservatives, and even some old guard PC'ers. I think Harper would make a fine PM, but his electability is low when compared to McKay, or sadly anyone with a red background on their party sign.

Unfortunately, Ontario has a strangle-hold on the House, and the Grits have some kind of a spell on Ontario. I don't know what it will take for the Liberals to fall out of favor with the 'chosen ones', but apparently massive fraud, money laundering, buy-offs, kick-backs, and a hi-jacked House are not enough. What a friggin soap opera. It makes me sick. What do we have to do to purge these vermin?


The next election, I predict, will not be until the summer of '06 at the very earliest. Martin has no qualms about violating the will of the House, and he has demonstrated a keen ability and willingness to lie, so I don't believe this '30-days means a Dec/Jan election' non-sense. He'll string this out as long as he can, or until he thinks he can win. So if some nut-job Conservative MP says something stupid (like White did in the last election), and the Conservatives plummet in the polls, we'll get our election right quick.

If the Conservatives don't win the next election, it could mean (and should) Harper's job. I also think there's an outsdie chance of the merger of the Alliance-PC going tits-up if they fail again.

 

[oyaguy]

It is truly a sad state of affairs that the myopia under which oyaguy operates is prevelant enough in this country that we keep electing these theives....

Whatever.

Harper's increasing stranglehold on the leadership of the opposition, is his fault, and his fault alone.

I couldn't tell you anything about his moral compass, I really couldn't tell you anything about him as person since I don't personally don't know him, never met him and really don't agree with his politics.

Why I won't be voting for him is another question. I remember when the the Gomery Commission was getting in full swing, Liberal corruption in everyones face, I thought I knew Stephen Harper would pull the trigger and put this minority government out of its misery. Wrong.

The talks of an election cooled when the polling numbers turned against him or at the least, didn't turn for him.

What it came down to for me, was that he decided not to show leadership, and sat on the sidelines playing parlour tricks in the House of Commons hoping the Liberals will collectively slit their own throats for the Conservatives.

He keeps pounding the drum of how corrupt the Liberals, pointing out the obvious {which, in general, annoys me to no end} when he should be pounding the drum for how great the Conservatives are and what he can do for Canada. Again it comes to that "vision thing". He doesn't have to be charismatic about it, he just has to have it and maybe even let people know about it once in awhile.

Otherwise he just looks like a more right-wing Paul Martin hoping the policy wonk label will make him look more just as primisterial.

 

[av1611]

You know what I think, parliment should vote on who becomes the PM. Before you all call me an elitist, I think this system works better and I'll tell you why. In our earlier history the PM was chosen by the members of parliment, during this time we got better leaders, then when the people of each party chose who became the leader we got people like Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, and Chretien. Now if the MP's were to choose who became the leader instead, do you think more people would be trusting of the PM because of it, or would the country be much better.

Just an idea

Actually, no change has occurred in the Westminster system.  You vote for your Member of Parliament, the ruling party - and it has always been the ruling party back to Robert Walpole's day - selects its leader to become Prime Minister.  Exceptions are in places like Zimbabwe where the ruling party arbitrarily adds Presidentially-appointed seats based on election results so that they always win.  I'm surprised the Liberal Party hasn't figured that trick out.  After all, Westminster rules seem to be optional these days in Ottawa when the PM can choose to ignore confidence votes.  Don't hold your breath waiting for the Gov-Gen to act.  An Australian GG tried that in the 1970s and almost scrapped the monarchy there as a result.  Besides, the days when retired Generals were GGs is long past.  Only Liberal hacks need apply these days. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>he should be pounding the drum for how great the Conservatives are and what he can do for Canada

First there must be an election call.  The ex-Reform members of the CPC remember being burned once before.  Let the Liberals call an election before they start grabbing chunks of the CPC platform.

 

[av1611]

>he should be pounding the drum for how great the Conservatives are and what he can do for Canada

First there must be an election call.   The ex-Reform members of the CPC remember being burned once before.   Let the Liberals call an election before they start grabbing chunks of the CPC platform.

Agree.  As has been stated, the Conservatives need to learn from Newt Gingrich and the Republicans of 1994 and offer a reason to vote for their party and not vote against the other guy.  The Tories in Britain still haven't figured that out since Maggie was unceremoniously ditched.  I do not believe that every - or even the majority of Canadians are for allowing men to marry men (if so, then why not dogs and men or a man and twelve women?), for legalising drugs (the Labour Party has finally figured out that was a bad idea), or for always playing the anti-American.  I know too many Canadians from all walks of life and of all ages who hold traditional, small-c conservative values.  Barry Goldwater faced an America that was - by all polling data - firmly and seemingly-permanently liberal.  He pushed ideas and was followed by a guy named Reagan who wrote newspaper columns and books pushing the conservative philosophy.  Considered out of the mainstream and extremist in 1980, Reagan's America continues on today and the "liberal" tag is now a liability to any politician.  There is hope for Canada.  Having a Canadian Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would help.

 

[oyaguy]

>he should be pounding the drum for how great the Conservatives are and what he can do for Canada

First there must be an election call.  The ex-Reform members of the CPC remember being burned once before.  Let the Liberals call an election before they start grabbing chunks of the CPC platform.

Okay, I concede that rather large point Mr. Brad Sallows {apologize ahead of time if you are in fact a Brad Sallows}. It would be an obvious trick for the Liberals to steal the best of the Conservatives election platform. In my opinion though, if you don't have charm you should have substance. Stephen Harper doesn't really have charm, so...

Additionally, I sometimes think the Conservatives, and the Liberals, try to hard to look conservative or liberal with issues like de-criminalizing marijuana, and same-sex marriage. Especially same-sex marriage. At the the end of the day when they probably pass a same-sex marriage bill, not much is going to happen and it really doesn't affect that many people.

 

[Infanteer]

Especially same-sex marriage. At the the end of the day when they probably pass a same-sex marriage bill, not much is going to happen and it really doesn't affect that many people.

No kidding - gay couples will continue to live together if the bill is passed or not; why is this is made a hot-button election issue (complete with finger pointing) when there are more substantive matters (foreign affiars, defence, fixing health care) to deal with.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's an issue because the centre and left in Canada know the issue is divisive on the right.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I hate everything about something like the Green Party, but if I thought it would get the scumbag, cheating, elitist, condesending, POS, LIEberals out of power, I'd probably vote for them. Hell, I'd probably vote for Uncle Joe, if he'd put all the other bastards against the wall within 24 hrs! We could worry about him AFTER we culled the bloodsuckers.