• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,298
Points
1,160
Proud_Newfoundlander said:
This has nothing to do with me being a Newfoundlander, and way to stereotype. Yeah, and with party funding, dont take into account demographics and their varying ability to donate to a political party

Why should demographics matter when we are dealing with national parties? Surely they all have supporters all across Canada - in rich and poor provinces alike. If not, if they depend, disproportionately on support in poor regions, then maybe they are not national at all and ought not to be trying to govern the nation.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
160
If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts. Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Best thory i have heard so far :

This was all engineered by Ignatief in a bid to accelerate Dion's demise and install himself as leader without the expense of a convention.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,605
Points
1,010
If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts. Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals

First off, you will have to prove to me that the demographics for the NDP are "poorer" for them then they are for the Conservatives.  Secondly, the Liberals basically are bankrupt and it is not the fault of anyone but the Liberal's shoddy attempts at fundraising and the absolute moral bankruptcy and rot within the party.

As for the NDP- they are nowhere near bankrupt.  They are second only to the Conservatives in fundraising lately.  Frankly, they don't need the help from the taxpayers.  And I would point this truth of politics (or just about anything else)- if you have a message that people can believe in, you will get their money.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Democracy if necessary, but not necessarily democracy:

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2008/12/08/dont-take-away-a-persons-right-to-vote-rae/

 
Don’t take away a person’s right to vote: Rae
December 8, 2008, 8:38 pm by Sandy

As Ezra Levant posted today, Bob Rae has made it clear that he thinks it is essential that all members of the Liberal Party of Canada be given a chance to vote on the next leader — that to do otherwise would be anti-democratic.

Here are his own words:

    The idea of taking away the vote from tens of thousands of grassroots activists in every part of Canada, and reducing the franchise to just 76 men and women seems so out-of-step with the modern world.  It makes you shake your head.

Huh?

Why is it okay not to take a vote away from a voting member of the Liberal Party of Canada to choose a leader but it is perfectly okay to take away the rights of the voting public — and replace the Prime Minister with a coalition involving a backroom deal put together by even fewer than 76 men and women?

The words that come to mind are inconsistency and hypocrisy. Funny how things look different when it’s Rae’s leadership that is at stake.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
953
Points
1,060
Well it's nice to know that if anything is consistant in this universe, it's Bob Rae. He was morally and mentally bankrupt when he steered Ontario into his train wreck, as Premier, and he'll use the same formula with the nation, if given the chance.
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Proud_Newfoundlander said:
If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts.

So what exactly are you saying here?  With new rules governing political donations no one is allowed to give that much really, but regardless, you are completely dropping the context of the conversation none the less. 

We are talking about $1.95 a year.  Even the poorest of the poor can afford to pay that much if they want to support their party.  The problem is (as it always is with liberal and socialist programs) the majority (according to public opinion polls) don't want or need to be forced to support any party but the one that happens to uphold their values.

Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals

Yes, Harper is a partisan Conservative.  Oh, the horror!  The guy that leads the Conservative party actually has the nerve to press his conservative agenda and believe in what he is doing!!!

PN did you lambaste Chretien when he brought this law in for purely partisan reasons? How about the completely partisan and geographically based Gun Registry, aimed at ridding urban centers of guns, but specifically affecting rural and largely non-liberal owners and the West.

Partisan, thy name is Proud_Newfoundlander :)
 

helpup

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
Proud_Newfoundlander said:
I think this whole mess is Harper's fault. This is yet another strategic partisan jab at the opposition, making it harder for them to gather funds to go against the Conservative Party of Canada, these cuts; putting it under the guise of cutting spending and whatnot (never mind the high spending and huge deficit they pulled off, what ? 1-2 budgets ago ? Thing is.. Harper, as Rex Murphy puts it, got really stupid or really arrogant. The liberals and the other coalition parties, realizing they couldn't let this go by, and seeing if they didn't act now they would never get the support they wanted, made a fuss about this now when the economy is a mess, and Harper has nobody to blame but himself for creating it. The arrogance of this man confounds me, seriously
I think you missed something.  Harper did bring up contentious legislation, ( like he hasn't done that before. ) yet it took a hit me in the pocket book piece that finally got the Liberals to vote. ( I lost track of how many they supported or abstained from despite hinting that this might finally be the one. ) Don't get me wrong I agree fully that the party funding removal is the start of all this.  I don't even mind the system for what it is.  Yet if a better one came out I would rather support it then be told that I had to give money to my party that I voted for.  My beef was Harper did not need to table those little digs in.  Yet he did, miscalculation or mastermind plot? ( I lean towards the former) You cant convince me that he anticipated this whole mess though.  Now onto the part I think you missed.  After this event was tabled it was the 3 Stooges lead by Dion went beyond fullfilling the oppositions role. They took this as a power grab chance for one and more impotently it was a GET HARPER!! Play.  These cuts as you put it are bad optics plain and simple and a bad time to bring it up.  However they are something that more then 50% of Canadians believe they should NOT be Paying.  ( I am not one of those at the moment ).

And getting onto Arrogance.  You do have a point Harper does come across as arrogant.  But no more the Chretien did despite his humble guy from the sticks routine. And what do you call Dion, who despite being labeled as one of the worse things to happen to the liberal brand decided that he would have the ability to lead a coalition ( that he swore he wouldn't ) of dissimilar parties with the sole goal or protecting the economy.  Yet what was their specifics for the "magic bullet" solution for this.  All I have heard was throw money at it.  Or Jack saying hey we will take any of their ideas and call it our own as we represent the majority.  They may represent together the majority of those who voted, but how many would of voted for the same party if they knew it was going into a coalition govt.  I know many NDPers who would not and even more liberals that are spinning.
 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
360
And Bob Rae drops out of the race because he said he did not want to delay the inevitable, IIRC.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/09/rae-liberals.html

Rae dropping out of Liberal leadership race, leaving Ignatieff
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 | 11:00 AM ET
Toronto MP Bob Rae will withdraw from the Liberal leadership race on Tuesday, paving the way for Michael Ignatieff to serve as the party's next leader, CBC News has confirmed.

Rae is scheduled to hold a news conference in Ottawa early Tuesday afternoon, when he is expected to announce his decision.

His departure leaves Ignatieff as the sole contender.

New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc announced Monday he was ending his leadership campaign and throwing his support behind Ignatieff.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,412
Points
1,110
This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,366
Points
1,260
OldSolduer said:
This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.

Heck, the leader was almost chosen by the party executive (some'll say he was, in effect), so I can see why some card-carrying members would be underwhelmed...
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,192
Points
1,010
>For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts.

As someone else wrote, that must be proven, not assumed.  The NDP has its share of limousine socialists.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,298
Points
1,160
OldSolduer said:
This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.


I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more classical form of Westminster style parliamentary government.

We should, according to the classicists all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should caucus, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve.


Edit: typo
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
872
Points
960
Brad Sallows said:
>For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts.

As someone else wrote, that must be proven, not assumed.  The NDP has its share of limousine socialists.

Indeed. According to the CPC's financial reports, most of their donations are for less than $100 per individual. It comes down to basic philosophy... Conservatives = a lot of little donors, Liberals = a few large donors, NDP = some of both. Although I'm not a member of any party, I would much rather belong to one that is less reliant on corporate or union contributions, thereby being more beholden to the membership at large.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,528
Points
1,060
E.R. Campbell said:
I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more classical form of Westminster style parliamentary government.

We should, according to the classicists all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should caucus, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve.


Edit: typo

Further to this I came across this article by William Cross of (wait for it) Carleton University and Andre Blais of Universite de Montreal.

A couple of highlights stood out for me:

....In 1965, we find only two methods of leadership choice in use: selection by the parliamentary caucus and by a delegate convention.  Selection by parliamentary caucus is consistent with traditional notions of parliamentary government in which the party leader’s primary task was to captain the parliamentary team.  In many parties, the party leader was not yet dominant outside the parliamentary caucus and in some cases was not even formally in charge of the extra parliamentary party.   The aggregate numbers mask the strength of the parliamentary party in leadership selection at this time.  In four of our six countries, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, all of the parties in our sample chose their leaders through a vote of MPs in 1965.  The Canadian and Belgian parties were the exception.  The Canadian parties abandoned caucus selection in favour of delegated conventions by the 1920s.  The Belgian parties, for their part, never gave the caucus the formal authority to select the president but this may be due to the fact that the president initially did not have much power and, perhaps most importantly in contrast with the Westminster party systems, the president was not the leader of the parliamentary party.

By 2007, the proportion of parties in which the parliamentary caucus makes the choice by itself  has dropped from two thirds to one quarter of our sample and this aggregate number is inflated by the continued popularity of this method in Australia and New Zealand.  All three of the major Australian parties continue with caucus selection as do the largest New Zealand parties.  Only one party in our sample outside of these two countries continues to choose its leader exclusively through a vote of its parliamentary caucus -  Ireland’s Fianna Fail..... 


And here is their definition of "caucus".


...There is some variance as to the definition of the ‘caucus’; in Australia all three parties extend the vote (for Party Leader) to members of both parliamentary houses, while Fianna Fail, for example, restricts the vote to elected members of the Irish Dail.  While declining in popularity, this method continues to be used by the major parties in Australia and New Zealand.....

I wonder if this internal selection process contributes to the tendency noted by many on this site for the Aussies to be able to put together positions that while fought over seem to be more likely to withstand the changing of governments.

One party doesn't seem to necessarily just throw out the policies of the previous governing party.

Does the selection process insulate the Prime Minister from many of the vagaries of populism?

 
Top