# Harper's long walk off a short pier?



## Reccesoldier (19 May 2005)

With all the recent goings on how many of you here believe that as a leader Harper is going to wear it in the long run for his handling of this whole mess?.

I say yes.

1. He could have brought the government down on its budgetary a$$ in the first few days rather than abstaining.
2. By some accounts he could be more inclusive with the progressive wing of the party
3. He has not done a very good job of representing how the CPC differs from the lib's and therefore most Canadians view the party in the same policy vaccume that they fought the last election with in spite of the Montreal national policy convention
4. the party (and therefore by association he... particularly he, his detractors will say) has not capitalized on the revalations of Gomery with the Canadian people. (could be unfair accusation I know but there is always someone in the wings ready to point fingers)
5. On the complete other side of the argument.... he jumped at the news of a single poll and threw the party into something it, and the Canadian people were not ready for (the though of election)

Personaly I think Stephen Harper was damaged goods going into the HoC on the first day of the 38th Parliament. No doubt this has made him completely N/S in the minds of some of his party and certainly in the minds of some undecided Canadaians. After all, he can't win for loosing, when his main opposition, in spite of obvious corruption, continues to score higher in the polls than his party and he can't even keep his own front benchers on side...

He's a goner. I don't think it will happen very soon (relatively speaking) but the fat lady is warming up in the wings.

I think he would have made a good PM, but I now doubt he will ever get the chance now.


----------



## canadianblue (20 May 2005)

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


----------



## onecat (20 May 2005)

"In our earlier history the PM was chosen by the members of parliment, during this time we got better leaders"

when did this happen, who were the good leaders?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2005)

We won't get good politicians till it's controlled with stringent rules.  

At no time in your life could you have held a license to:

Sell cars;
Sell real estate; or
Practice law.

You would have to prove you worked at a job, or jobs, for half your life, that payed no more than $80,000 per year (before taxes).
You would have to prove you had to pay your own way for your education.
You would have to prove that you spent, at the minimum, 15 hours, three times in your life, in Emergency, for potentially life threatening ailments; and 
You cannot be, or have been, on the Board of Directors for any Corporation that grossed more than 1 million a year.

If you receive more than $50.00 from any person or group for your campaign....gone.
If you don't follow the wishes of your constituents, no matter what the Party whip says, .....gone.
If you take a Parliamentary salary of more than you made, plus $5000.000, yearly for the previous five years, before being elected,.....gone.
IF YOU CHANGE PARTIES IN MID STRIDE WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PEOPLE THAT PUT YOU THERE AND WITH A BY-ELECTION....GONE!!!
If you deviate, one iota, from what you promised or said on the campaign trail.... gone.

We need parliamentary reform. Elected Senate, voter recall and national referendum on major issues. I would rather go to the polls five times a year for my beliefs than leave it to the scab labour we elect to think for us. The whole point to being elected now days is to pad your bank account and pension, with no thought to the people who believed the false promises and empty rhetoric emanating from our, once, hallowed halls.

While I'm at it. Our, APPOINTED (by the PMO's office) Supreme Court, is there to enforce the laws designed by our politicians, NOT MAKE THEM!!!

  ;D Maybe I'm out in left field here, but that's what I believe. Take it as tongue in cheek, for the most part. It's also the reason I stay out of the political forums, cause it's what I believe and will not debate it, analyse it, or deviate from it, till my gut tells me to.  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

So, recceguy, you wouldn't vote for me then?   ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2005)

Move here, campaign on your own dime & time, do what you promise and I'll get you TEN votes.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

But I don't fit into your requirements....


----------



## oyaguy (20 May 2005)

Personally I think the biggest mistake that Harper made from the beginning was becoming the leader of the New Conservative Party. He should have let Peter Mackay have the leadership, and be accused of running things from the backrooms rather than be accused of simply taking over the Progessive Conservatives. 

This is a leader who wasn't been able to get the combined Canadian Alliance and PC vote, during one of the bigger scandals. Also, people say Harper has a hidden agenda, and with nuts like Randy White mouthing off, a lot of Canadians believe it. 

I honestly think Randy White{retiring thankfully} cost the Conservatives a good portion of the electorate, with his comments about invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. 

The next election, whenever it is, will probably result in Harper being bounced if he doesn't win.


----------



## canadianblue (20 May 2005)

> This is a leader who wasn't been able to get the combined Canadian Alliance and PC vote, during one of the bigger scandals. Also, people say Harper has a hidden agenda, and with nuts like Randy White mouthing off, a lot of Canadians believe it.
> 
> I honestly think Randy White{retiring thankfully} cost the Conservatives a good portion of the electorate, with his comments about invoking the Notwithstanding Clause.



If I remember correctly some Liberal MP's made the same comments about invoking the notwithstanding clause for same sex marriage. But then again their not nuts, afterall their Liberal how can they be :


----------



## The_Falcon (20 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Also, people say Harper has a hidden agenda, and with nuts like Randy White mouthing off, a lot of Canadians believe it.


  This is what particularly drives me nuts about most Canadians.  The fact that they buy into this hidden agenda nonsense.  You know what every bloody leader of the opposition has had a "hidden agenda", or so the ruling liberals will tell you.  And it is getting quite old. Its quite mind boggling that people believe this tripe, and all the other crap the liberal spin machine puts out.  

Maybe with any luck Quebec will seperate, the country will collapse, the US will take over , clean house, and let us become Marines


----------



## Phillman (20 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> The next election, whenever it is, will probably result in Harper being bounced if he doesn't win.



That would probably be a big step forward for the Conservatives. I personally don't trust him, and I know I'm not alone. As hard as it is to say, I was happy with the minority gov't after the last election. I didn't want Mr. Harper as PM, but I also didn't want the Liberals to have free reign.


----------



## Zipper (20 May 2005)

I agree. I think Harper is on the way out. Slowly, but gone...

Why the hell didn't McKay run for the damn leadership in the first place? Nut bar.

As for Harper having a hidden agenda. Whatever. It sounds good in the media when you say its hidden. Its his non-hidden agenda and his past comments that scare the crap out of so many Canadians.


----------



## canadianblue (20 May 2005)

> As for Harper having a hidden agenda. Whatever. It sounds good in the media when you say its hidden. Its his non-hidden agenda and his past comments that scare the crap out of so many Canadians.



Which is???


----------



## oyaguy (20 May 2005)

I personally doubt Harper has a hidden agenda.
*BUT*
It's the perception that he does this is more important. 

The fact that he doesn't really seem to have an agenda doesn't help either. I try to keep up to date with the news and current events {I have two magazine conscriptions and routinely peruse the internet content of one newspaper, and several other news agencies almost everyday}, and I shouldn't have to go looking for what the Conservatives are planning to do when {if} they get into government. I just checked their website. "The Conservative Party will fight for  { insert specific issue or demographic}", is the format for the issues portion of their website. How uninspiring, and it doesn't really tell me anything either as everyone supports healthcare, immigrants, doctors, accountability, tax cuts, the military, good relations with the US, puppies, kittens, singing, hygiene, reading etc...

The Conservatives, and really I mean Stephen Harper, are trying to convince us why we shouldn't be voting for the Liberals. It didn't work for John Kerry and it hasn't worked for Stephen Harper.

For God's Sake! Make Peter Mackay the leader. Dump Harper. Get some vision. Advertise the vision. Simple! Of course, this kind of assumes the Liberals will have the pall of the Sponsership Scandal hanging over them for the rest of eternity, or however long it takes the Conservatives to get an act together.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 May 2005)

For those of you who would be reluctant to elect the Conservatives/Harper, and are more inclined to support the Martin Liberals, I ask you what is their vision/futre for this country?  As far as I can see it is spend spend spend on our dime, and give handouts to every social cause out there whether it is warranted or not, just so long as we (Ontario) keep electing them back into the power and NDP helps prop them up.  Supporting the Green party of NDP or plain abstaining from voting in an election does absolutely nothing!!  If you have a problem with the liberals support the only party that has hope of defeating them, the conservatives.  If you don't like some their policies well here is an idea, join the friggen party and voice your opinion and try and change some of those policies. Stop buying the BS media spin that Harper is scary blah blah, and use your own brains.  What is truly scary is a leader and a party whose main tactic is declaring anyone who disagrees with them uncanadian and a biggotted racist.  That is scary, a party so drunk on power they frighten the public with base insults just so they remain in power.

Rant off.


----------



## onecat (20 May 2005)

"That would probably be a big step forward for the Conservatives. I personally don't trust him, and I know I'm not alone. As hard as it is to say, I was happy with the minority gov't after the last election. I didn't want Mr. Harper as PM, but I also didn't want the Liberals to have free reign."

You perfer to trust Paul Martin?  He hasn't done anything as PM yet, and only time he's acted like he wanted the job: was when he thought he was on the way out.  Where is Paul's much talked about reforms?  The conservative want reforms, it sure won't be hard to get them passed... Look at how the PMO's office has been out promising good jobs and benifits to any conservative that would join his party.  Paul is not someone I would trust.  I think he's only using gay marriage as way to get re-elected, as was his stand missle defence.  Really the only way to get good government is to defeat the Liberals and them show to Canadians that some other party can actually do it better.

Lets put this way if you were buying a used a car, would buy it from Martin or Harper.  I know paul would promise me it was in top notch shape but when I got it home it would break and I'ld find out that there lots of hiden costs, he someone how forgot to me about.


----------



## oyaguy (20 May 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Stop buying the BS media spin that Harper is scary blah blah, and use your own brains.  What is truly scary is a leader and a party whose main tactic is declaring anyone who disagrees with them uncanadian and a bigoted racist.  That is scary, a party so drunk on power they frighten the public with base insults just so they remain in power.


Sorry, but the conservatives recent performance in the house doesn't get any extra points from me. Trying to trigger a constitutional crisis {which isn't}, 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} is past a line both parties seem to enjoy crossing as of late. 
I think for most people what it comes down to, is the devil you know. The Conservatives and Stephen Harper haven't really done anything to convince Canadians that the Conservatives are the better party to run Canada as opposed to  It's cliched but the devil you know is sometimes the best bet.
The Conservatives should really stop trying to demonize the Liberals and try selling themselves on their own merits. 

Not to mention that "vision thing" that all parties lack.


----------



## canadianblue (20 May 2005)

> Stop buying the BS media spin that Harper is scary blah blah, and use your own brains.  What is truly scary is a leader and a party whose main tactic is declaring anyone who disagrees with them uncanadian and a biggotted racist.  That is scary, a party so drunk on power they frighten the public with base insults just so they remain in power.



When fascism comes to North America it will come in the name of anti-fascism.



> Sorry, but the conservatives recent performance in the house doesn't get any extra points from me. Trying to trigger a constitutional crisis {which isn't}, 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 ***** and a prostitute {turncoat, traitor, possibly unprincipled I can see} is past a line both parties seem to enjoy crossing as of late.
> I think for most people what it comes down to, is the devil you know. The Conservatives and Stephen Harper haven't really done anything to convince Canadians that the Conservatives are the better party to run Canada as opposed to  It's cliched but the devil you know is sometimes the best bet.
> The Conservatives should really stop trying to demonize the Liberals and try selling themselves on their own merits.



And the Liberals have done none of this. As well the devil you know is better then the one you don't is the stupidest logic I have ever heard. Lets say Stalin was running against Harper, I bet you would still say the devil [Stalin] you know is better then the one you don't. Get off it. Why don't you actaully go to party websites, look at the policies and make an informed decision. Oh just wait a minute, that might take 30 minutes out of your day so I doubt that would ever happen.


----------



## winchable (20 May 2005)

Stalin? I smell straw..man.

Harper lacks charisma, plain and simple. These comments we keep hearing about him making, would the majority of the populace forgotten about them had he some kind of delivery and charm? Perhaps.
His speeches are..forgettable.
He looks..like..my math teacher.

And I actually like the guy!
I think he's intelligent and proper but since when is democracy about intelligence and being upright and proper?
Why do you think the country falls over when they hear Trudeau's name?
Chretien had a loveable..grandpa with a stroke kind of look about him, you liked him because of it.
Mulrooney even with his charming strong chin.

He has the charisma of an angry bag of hammers that never smiles and I'm sorry but politics is 90% appearances, it's not just a Canadian thing look anywhere else with elections.
If the decisions of the majority of the people were influenced by something other than outward appearances and whos got the better PR guy than governments would look markedly different.

It's no good to sit back and say "Damn sheeple, well we'll just keep using him until they learn."
It's being realistic if you say, we need someone with public appeal and fire. Harper could still pull the strings even though like any party's politics it's probably a melting pot of different people's ideas.

Of course it's only a part of what needs to be done but with 24 hour news coverage, why not use some of it to their advantage?


----------



## The_Falcon (20 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> The Conservatives should really stop trying to demonize the Liberals and try selling themselves on their own merits.



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.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2005)

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 (21 May 2005)

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 (22 May 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> 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".



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> 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 (22 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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 (23 May 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> 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 (23 May 2005)

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 (23 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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 (23 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 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 (23 May 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> 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 (24 May 2005)

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 (24 May 2005)

>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 (24 May 2005)

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 (26 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 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 (26 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> 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 (26 May 2005)

>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 (26 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >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 (26 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >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 (26 May 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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 (27 May 2005)

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2005)

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.


----------



## JBP (27 May 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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.



I couldn't agree with you more... That is basically exactly what I've been telling people, who CARES if you don't like ALL of the Conservatives policies! Let's get those damn monkeys (Liberals) back in thier cage before they break something!!!---> Canada (EG>Province splitting...)

I think 80% of Ontario simply votes for whoever thier Dad does/did... Or they just really have no bloody clue... This past week I've also talked to 3 different middle-aged adults that haven't voted in at least a decade!!!  

Why even live here then????  :-\


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> All I can say is it is not the Canada that I knew when I grew up.   By the way, who decided it needed to be changed anyway?



True deau?


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 May 2005)

Now I don't want to turn this into a Gay Marriage discussion but... 

We were discussing this at work and I think we came up with a viable solution. Take the word marriage out of the constitution. 

The rationale behind the move is this, Marriage as an institution was created by religion long before it was given any civil component. As a religious institution it is (or should be) beyond the power of government to define, legislate, condone or condemn.

Having said that though there has been a significant civil component attached to "marriage" by the modern welfare state, such as survivor benefits, inheritance, dissolution and the subsequent division of property etc, etc, etc. However none of these necessarily impacts the religious institution.

So if we were to eliminate the 3(?) references to 'marriage' in the constitution and replace those with the word 'union' and appropriately define union as being "between two persons to the exclusion of all others" and let the various religions define their criteria for marriage within that broad definition then the problem would be effectively removed from the legislative sphere and returned to the religions where it belongs.

Yes it would be well within the rights of any two persons to be 'unioned' but any allowance for "marriage" would be decided by religion within their framework of norms, traditions and practices.


----------



## Thirstyson (27 May 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Yes it would be well within the rights of any two persons to be 'unioned' but any allowance for "marriage" would be decided by religion within their framework of norms, traditions and practices.



Churches already define and conduct marriages within their own framework of norms, traditions and practices. I wasn't married in a church, does that mean I should only be considered as 'unioned'?


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 May 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Churches already define and conduct marriages within their own framework of norms, traditions and practices. I wasn't married in a church, does that mean I should only be considered as 'unioned'?



Yes.


----------



## Thirstyson (27 May 2005)

Well, I'm just going to have to take that as an insult (in the same way people are offended in including gays in the term marriage).


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 May 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Well, I'm just going to have to take that as an insult (in the same way people are offended in including gays in the term marriage).



Well, that is your right of course ;D but I would ask that if being "married" was so important then why would you go to a non-religious institution in the first place? 

The whole premise here is to get the Government out of the bedrooms of the nation. It has no reason to be there, it can not stop people from living together in whatever capacity anyway so why invoke half measures and create problems, which in turn obscure the nature of the legislation which exists by using terms that invoke religious connotations.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 May 2005)

You mean I can't go to the courthouse to get baptized?


----------



## Zipper (27 May 2005)

So your saying Recce that marriage is simply a word used by the religious community to define a relationship? Now considering how long "marriage" as a definition has been been around, who is to say when it was "religious" (pagan or otherwise) and when it was civil? Because as we all know, the idea of marriage (if not the term) has been around a lot longer then any of today's organized religions.

But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?

I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> So your saying Recce that marriage is simply a word used by the religious community to define a relationship? Now considering how long "marriage" as a definition has been been around, who is to say when it was "religious" (pagan or otherwise) and when it was civil? Because as we all know, the idea of marriage (if not the term) has been around a lot longer then any of today's organized religions.
> 
> But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?
> 
> I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.



Yes, a marriage would automaticaly grant the same benefits as a union, after all people, would still have to register themselves to receive them. 

That is what I'm trying to do... get rid of the term marriage in the constitution.

I dare say when Grunt and Squeek were 'married' by the local witchdoctor neither one of them ever received any social protection or perks from the 'state'. Hell in feudal England there was no social governmental component of marriage, no survivor benefits, even divorce was handled by the church. I think it is safe to say that religious marriage existed long before government got into it.


----------



## Zipper (27 May 2005)

The curious part of me would be rather interested in how it was handled in Rome, Greece, and even back to Mesopotamia. Considering how the Greeks and surrounding area were back then, its anyones guess as how they would have handled the same sex marriage question.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?
> 
> I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.



An extreme analogy would be:

You go to a Chev dealer (Church) and buy a car (marriage), while your friends go to a Toyota Dealer (Court House) and buy an Accord (Civil Union).   In both cases you still have to pay Sales Tax (except in Alberta of course) and GST.

What is your point?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2005)

MODERATOR NOTE
Back on to the topic, please. We have a rather long thread on gay marriage somewhere else in the political forum.
Thanks


----------



## Zipper (29 May 2005)

I guess my point is that marriage is simply a term. So to lock it into simply religious or civil is rather silly. I myself had a civil ceremony and prefer to think of my "union" as "marriage". To call it anything less because it is not "religious" doesn't make sense to me.

Either way I still think Harper is a goner. How's that Bruce? ;D


----------



## PeterLT (29 May 2005)

Wow...What a great read this is! ;D

I find that as I get older, things become a bit more clear. You young boots will understand in due time. it seems to me that there are two things to consider here before drawing any conclusions about who one should support and vote for:

1. Given that a party is corrupt and deceitful, known to be so and can reasonably be expected to remain so in the near future. And that most Canadians (certainly those here) are honest and hard working; why would they wish to be in any way associated with them? To be so would imply guilt by association and as some of us who have been to DB know, one of the first things learned is, "shoulda known better".

2. If upon careful examination, one discovers that the "reasons" one is suspicious or afraid of any change is primarily based on information supplied by the party in point 1; how would that fear be justified as being true and warranted?

I have found that the hottest commodity coming from the Liberal government is fear. If you vote Conservative, Quebec will separate. If you vote Conservative, Heathcare will collapse and clothes hanger abortions will be mandatory for both men and women. If you vote Conservative, homosexuals will be forced to to relinquish their constitutional rights and sell hot dogs at the Saddledome. If you vote Conservative it will be pandemonium! Dogs sleeping with cats, for heaven's sake! Can any adult actually believe this? Especially without any evidence except that supplied by the Liberal government that this would be true? My goodness, Mr. Harper sure is one powerful guy, maybe he *should* be PM!

The future will bring what it brings, but ultimately Canadians _will_ get the government they deserve.

Peter


----------



## oyaguy (29 May 2005)

Wow, I should not have thrown gay marriage in to the mix.



			
				PeterLT said:
			
		

> 1. Given that a party is corrupt and deceitful, known to be so and can reasonably be expected to remain so in the near future. And that most Canadians (certainly those here) are honest and hard working; why would they wish to be in any way associated with them? To be so would imply guilt by association and as some of us who have been to DB know, one of the first things learned is, "shoulda known better".
> 
> 2. If upon careful examination, one discovers that the "reasons" one is suspicious or afraid of any change is primarily based on information supplied by the party in point 1; how would that fear be justified as being true and warranted?
> Peter



To point one. Agreed.

Point 2, is mostly Harper's fault in my mind. The Liberals branded him but they didn't brand him for the fun of it either. Harper has made statements, and has associates that might give a person pause, and throw in the Liberals connecting dots {which may or may not exist} in the minds of people of who Harper is and what he stands for. Harper's responses, and those associates of his {one of whom I've mentioned before, Randy White} sometimes shot themselves and the Conservative party in the foot. 
As for the Harper Brand, Harper hasn't really done anything to make people think anything otherwise, beyond the usual denials of intent. When people look at Harper, all people see is a charisma-less policy wonk, who's mum on the policy. Whatever he does during the rest of this Parliament, he cannot run a campaign with the banner of "Don't Vote For The Liberals", if he hopes to became Prime Minister. Reining in any of the yahoos in the CPC would also help. I can't name many after Randy White, so on the front Harper is improving.


----------



## canadianblue (29 May 2005)

> I can't name many after Randy White, so on the front Harper is improving.



What did Randy White do again???

If its over his comments on using the notwithstanding clause for same sex marriage, remember that some Liberal MP's supported that position as well, but since their Liberal they aren't extremists :. As well how many people in Canada believe in using the notwithstanding clause if necessary for gay marriage, they should be silenced in this democracy in the name of political correctness. My biggest beef with the same sex marriage debate is that it wasn't the elected bodies which made the decision and pushed ahead gay marriage, it was the unelected courts who in my mind overstepped their bounds. We might as well get rid of parliment and have the courts run things if they are the end decision makers for all of our public policies.


----------



## Zipper (30 May 2005)

As far as Harper and the "Conservatives" are concerned, it matters little to me what the Liberal's say about them. As a once proud PC supporter (greatly shaken by certain years in the 80's which we do not talk about at parties...) it is the fact that Harper comes from what I see as the, further then I'm comfortable with right wing, of an upstart party (reform) which had some not bad ideas but had some very scary ones as well (breath). His ideals back in the day and which I seriously doubt he has forgotten or left behind are very much along the extreme right wing of the western (Alberta) ideal and quite honestly I disagree with much of them.

So while I would love to see the Liberal's get their asses handed to them in a sling, I cannot ignore the past and basic ideals of where Mr. Harper (and much of the new/old conservative/alliance/reform members) comes from. So until Harper (and friends) leave and the more moderate/PC ideals (aka. MacKay) once again begin to return to the conservative party, I find myself in a difficult place. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## canadianblue (30 May 2005)

> it is the fact that Harper comes from what I see as the, further then I'm comfortable with right wing, of an upstart party (reform) which had some not bad ideas but had some very scary ones as well (breath). His ideals back in the day and which I seriously doubt he has forgotten or left behind are very much along the extreme right wing of the western (Alberta) ideal and quite honestly I disagree with much of them.



And these "scary" ideals are???

Listen Alberta isn't that bad of a place to live in, we can't be doing that bad we have no PST and are debt free. As well I think were doing substantially better then the rest of the country. Now this is my own opinion. But if you talk about "scary" ideals tell us about them, I believe that Harper was in face more of a libertarian in the Reform party with regards to abortion and social issues, etc. But if you got this info from CBC then of course they can't be wrong, as we all know the media will always paint a fair and accurate picture of events :


----------



## Acorn (31 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> My biggest beef with the same sex marriage debate is that it wasn't the elected bodies which made the decision and pushed ahead gay marriage, it was the unelected courts who in my mind overstepped their bounds. We might as well get rid of parliment and have the courts run things if they are the end decision makers for all of our public policies.



The courts did not overstep their bounds. They merely applied the wishes of the people through Parliament in the form of the Charter. Parliament had the option to enact legislation defining marriage, or (the easier route, legislatively) allowing same sex marriage (which has been around for a while anyway). The issue is not whether something that was once the sole province of religion needs to be modified, but whether the secular laws that have since accrued to it (marriage) are applicable to same-sex unions. I'd say let them pay the taxes and such, as well as get the "benefits" of divorce law and death taxes, that the rest of us get. 

Where the line in the sand needs to be drawn is in forcing religious bodies to sanction same-sex unions. This is an interference of the State in Religion, the reverse of which would not be tolerated (as the Conservative/Alliance/CRAP has yet to seem to discover).

Acorn


----------



## Wizard of OZ (6 Jun 2005)

I debated on whether or not to weigh in on this conversation but i think i have a right we do live in a free country for now until they tax that.

1) Why can Harper not win?  He does lack alot of the charm and smiles that Ontarians love and admit it so does much of the voting public.  He is learning though.  As long as this is the only political trait he picks up the Conservatives could be a threat in the next election.  If it is not then i feel we may be in the same boat in two years from now.  
People ask why does Ontario vote liberal and there are alot of reasons for it but my guess would be the sting of Mulroney is still tender and then you throw Harris in there and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth for quite a while.  Sure the liberal party is starting to taste like sour grapes but it is still better the S*&t that was shoveled in before.  The Conservatives have to come up with a plan to change the flavour of the next election if they want to win.

2) If you are willing to classify Belinda as a traitor what then do you call the Bloc Party?  This one i have a real problem with Is she a Traitor or using her Political sense(ego) to gain better for herself.  Yea she crossed the floor her doing so cost the CPC a confidence motion.  But is that really a bad thing?  If you want to call her a traitor you have to look at your bed mates first, the Bloc.  The CPC calling the Liberals bad for Canada then partnering themselves with a party whose main goal is to have its province leave Canada is not real smart in my book and that may come back to haunt them in a future election.

3)  Yes there is a lot of negativity in the press but that holds for both parties if you live in the east you hear how dangerous Harper is and ohhh how scary the party is (hang on shaking in fear) If you live in the west you hear of how bad the Liberals are and how they are selling themselves out for votes.  So i think that may be close to a draw.  As for the devil you know, I am sure that is what most of Ontario was thinking in the election and you know what that is exactly what they got.  Is it better then the devil they didn't know?  Guess we may never really find out.  Cause if we have another minority i think Harper will be ousted and someone with a little more charm and animation will be installed. 

Troopper a bunch of apes could lead Alberta out of debt so saying that is a political issues is not true.  But Alberta has payed a very heavy price in its education system and city infastructure to have itself debt free.  Of course as long as oil is 50 or so bucks a barrel they may be able to fix it before it is to late.  Unless they do a national energy program again and crash the whole boom but that would be bad for the west so that would never happen would it :-\  As for the no tax we do pay more for alot of the things we buy including gas then most cities in Ont.  So i think the tax is built in to alot of the products.


----------



## Zartan (6 Jun 2005)

It's just that everyone is playing the B.S. card. If there was a parliamentary commitee on the election, they would discover every election campaign is just a bunch of hooey. As they should know, as they partook in it. How many promises have or will have been kept if they were elected? The only commercial I remember from last June that wasn't an attack on the other parties was the one with Jack Layton standing around talking about how his party matters to Canadians. Did him alot of good. Every other one was an attack on the other party. And then there were the other attacks, like liberals haranging Harper in Ontario (that was pretty lame), or what probably killed Conservative credibility in the minds of many people "Paul Martin supports child pornography" - though the document would have lessened damage, had people read it. No one did. 

Quite possibly the reason for the existence of this belief in a "hidden agenda" was Ralph Klein's proclamation that Health Care reform could occur under Harper. Also, his past has been rather spotty in terms of Canada-lovin'. He was one of the people who proposed the Firewall Plan, after all, plus he did co-write an apology to the Americans over the Iraq War (which he now doesn't support in public).

As a sidenote, Alberta is a wonderful place to live. I love it here, though that may change once I start voting (I'm not a liberal or NDP, by the way - I'm "non-alligned", and will vote for who I think is best). But yes, we certainly have problems here with a number of things. Education, definitely - one of the French classes at my school has 42 students, and only 38 can fit in the classroom. The rest sit in the hallway. Infrastructure is a problem too, plus the government is taking no effort to move Alberta away from the Oil-dominated economy which permeates almost the entire way of life, too. And finally, poverty is very high.


----------



## jmacleod (9 Jun 2005)

Conversation over coffee this morning - feeling in Moncton NB is that neither Harper or Martin will
survive at Party leaders - Martin made an enormous error in judgement by introducing Judge Gomery
to Canada - in the Liberal Party, Former PM Chretien is well liked and admired - as he says, he was
betrayed (and he is right) knowing the Ministers who created the Sponsorship Fiasco, they are
the bottom feeders of the political process, who owe their political careers to Chretien who trusted
them. The Party will eliminate Martin. Harper, who could be an excellent PM, has all the right qualities,
made an enormous error in judgement by trusting that sleazly little creep Grewal - who would be a
"Liberal" right now if the door had been opened. Harper should have thrown him out of the Conservative Party - Harper does not accept the traditional view in the Liberal Party of Canada, that
all the "front end" politicians are expendable - training being: (a) get elected (b) find out where
Ottawa is (c) find you seat (d) do what you are told and (e), vanish when your vote is not needed.
MacLeod


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Harper does not accept the traditional view in the Liberal Party of Canada, that
> all the "front end" politicians are expendable - training being: (a) get elected (b) find out where
> Ottawa is (c) find you seat (d) do what you are told and (e), vanish when your vote is not needed.



Can you blame him?  A little disheartening when this is considered the "most successful democratic party in the world".... :-\


----------



## Wizard of OZ (9 Jun 2005)

But then Harper should not have used the tapes to try and hammer the liberals he should have used them the hammer Grewal.  But his masters saw this as a chance to kick the Liberals when they were down.  This blew up in his face and now he has to live with the decision.  But i feel you may be right when it comes down to who survives this.  Hey PM Layton not all that bad of a ring.


----------



## Zartan (9 Jun 2005)

Dear god...
PM Layton

I see... 
the Wendy's lady... 
in combat fatigues... 
"where's the funding"... 

 ;D


----------



## jmacleod (10 Jun 2005)

Layton as Prime Minister? You are kidding, right?

Layton's Father I think was a Conservative MLA in the Davis government - maybe
he is a "conservative socialist" - MacLeod


----------



## dutchie (10 Jun 2005)

PM Layton? I don't think so. That will never, ever happen. At least not under any forseable political climate. The overwhelming majority of Canadians (except maybe Quebecers) do not support his ideology - he and the NDP are too far left. He does have a shot at opposition, though, if Harper falls on his ear and the electorate wakes up and holds Martin to account for his party's criminal activity.

If I had to guess what will happen in the next few years, I expect PM Martin to call an election no earlier than next summer. The Liberals or the Conservatives will win a slim majority, and the NDP will fall slightly in the number of held seats (due to voters being polarized between the Tories and the Grits). Both Martin and Harper, I believe, are in danger of losing their leadership positions, as was mentioned. Layton is Golden right now and is in no danger of being toppled, obviously. If McKay becomes the Tory leader, he would have a really good chance of beating the Grits in the election following the upcoming one, provided he can gain the confidance of Western Tories (especially the old Alliance types). Of course, if we get another minority government, we will be back at the polls within a couple years again, and McKay would have a really good chance of winning, if Harper doesn't win the upcoming one.

Just some rambling thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jun 2005)

Yes that was a joke


----------



## jmacleod (10 Jun 2005)

Talked to a long time friend and veteran of the political wars - he agreed that Harper would make
an "excellent PM, and take the country in a vitally needed new direction" - but the media, plus
advice from some of the fools around him has done him in. He will not "beat" the Liberals. We agreed
that Martin is finished - Party already working on a strategy - apparently what was said to flunkies
in the PMO who are aware of this was, "don't like it, go to the media; just what the government
needs, a public skirmish leading to an all out war, inside the system" - but Martin will be gone. A
Liberal Cabinet Minister to keep an eye on is David Emmerson, Industry. He called for a new overall
strategy by IC bureaucrats several months ago. It was presented with great flourish, and Emmerson
rejected the entire plan - putting several flunkies and bureaucrats on Valium. Liberal Party strategists
see a lot of ability plus business and street smarts in Emmerson, who is from BC, noted for being
tough and blunt. Manley's name came up; Manley has been in a trance for some time. MacLeod


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Manley's name came up; Manley has been in a trance for some time. MacLeod



Then he better get his name off the election to BOD for Nortel, yet another sinking ship infested with "Lie"berals. I voted "withold" on his nomination.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2005)

Hey don't you all find it funny that its probably going to the supreme court and not the conservatives that will bring private health care to Canada. If the Liberals invoke the notwithstanding clause then I'm calling them hypocritical because as we all know the Supreme Court is never wrong.


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jun 2005)

Our associates here (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick) and Ottawa are very much aware that there
have been three mjor, high profile Studies on universival health care (Medicare) on behalf of the
Federal government - familier with one, which advocates the introduction of two-tier medical
services for all Canadians - it is coming. Reason, despite the NDP and Layton, the country cannot
afford to subsidize the system any longer in full, and must provide a universal alternative. This
recommendation is based on a declining GNP, a undervalued dollar, and a significant drop in the
birth rate over the past two decades. Senator Michael Kirby's Report (available from the Senate)
is right. Kirby was a Professor of Mathmatics at Dalhousie University - a bright guy - of course, in
fairness, we think he has ties with the medical services industry, but his report is based on logic
without the input of bullshit one usually finds in politically motivated reports. Ultimately of course
the country needs a change in government, and a thorough housecleaning. The decline of Stephen
Harper is a sad commentary on the lack of many Canadians to reflect on the future of their country
NacLeod


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2005)

I think the Liberals were wrong to say that Alberta would be the ones to destroy medicare, it ended up being Quebec. Why didn't they attack Quebec for their use of private health care I wonder :


----------



## limyjack (11 Jun 2005)

Saddly I would agree.

The point is not how silly some Canadians are for buying into the "hidden agenda" garbage, it is that in general Ottawa is a visionless location substantially out of touch with reality.

Harper needed to refrain from arguing a different way to do the same thing, he needed to agrue for a new way to do new things. How about a new deal under confederation for the federal and provincial governments, not one off liberal deals. How about a complete re-vamp of not only the lectoral system, but how the House works. 

Martin promised generalities on "democratic renewal" Harper should have changed the tome of the debate from arguing corruption that was clearly on display to arguing a new and cleaner future with a complete re-birth for confederation and how politics is done. 

Saddly, while I think Harper is intelligent and honest, he needs to step down before the next election, or Jack Layton is going to beenfit from a leftward shift of the electorate.


----------



## Zipper (12 Jun 2005)

Good reply Jimy

I think I would agree with you on a need for change as far as a new deal under confederation. But I would extend that to federal, provincial, AND municipal. Since the vast majority of citizens are now in cities and this is growing every year, it would make sense to hand off a large part of the responsibility for tax collection and decision making to them so that they can fund their infrastructure properly as well as avoid all the various levels of political squabbling over power/funds. This would also have the added bonus of shrinking the governments on two levels to less then half, and since most cities already have representatives towards their needs in most areas, their growth to compensate would not be huge.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jun 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I think I would agree with you on a need for change as far as a new deal under confederation. But I would extend that to federal, provincial, AND municipal. Since the vast majority of citizens are now in cities and this is growing every year, it would make sense to hand off a large part of the responsibility for tax collection and decision making to them so that they can fund their infrastructure properly as well as avoid all the various levels of political squabbling over power/funds.



I think you are on the right track here, Zipper - it may be worthwhile considering a re-write of the Canadian Federal relationship to one of urban/rural lines instead of the much touted "regional" ones that have been the centerpiece of Constitutional friction in the past.

I think regionalism gets too much credit these days.  Look at voting patterns: the Liberals usually take large urban areas (they take most of the Southern Ontario "strip", seats in all the Western cities like Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Regina), the Conservatives are getting more and more of the "rural" (ie: not dense urban area) vote, NDP gets a diffuse vote based upon ideological lines and the Bloc gets a concentrated vote that is concentrated not along "regional lines" but upon cultural ones (there a plenty of other people in the region of Quebec who don't align with Franco-nationalism).

Cities/towns/communities may be the place to focus our Constitutional power-bartering for the future.


----------



## jmacleod (12 Jun 2005)

When Hon Pierre E. Trudeau was PM he created a Ministry of Urban Affairs. The first Minister responsible
for the new agency was Hon. Barnet Danson MP, Toronto. The plan was for the urban areas of
Canada (the big cities for the most part) to deal directly with the Federal government. In other
words, the Mayor of Toronto could negotiate directly with Minister Danson and his people for money
- but the Provinces complained bitterly to Trudeau, that the cities should not deal directly with the
Feds, and bypass the concept of Provincial jurisdiction - so the Ministry vanished and Minister Danson
become MND (best ever in our opinion). The popular mythology in Canada is that Federal transfer
payments, say for Medicare to, for instance the Province of Nova Scotia go directly into "Medicare"
- fact is, the monies go into General Revenue, also, the Feds never give the amounts promised, only
part of the dollars allocated. Most of the money in Medicare for instance goes into administration,
not towards actual, on the spot, medical services. That is one of the reasons that two-tire medicine
is coming to Canada, like it on not - recent decision in Quebec was no surprise to us. MacLeod


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Jun 2005)

I completely disagree with the Cities dealing with the Feds. How will the provinces be able to plan the multitude of things they do in and for the cities if the cities can deal directly with the Fed's? If you think we have too much bureaucracy now just wait until the cities start putting lobby groups and special interests forward to the federal government. How much more of our taxes will go to supporting this added layer of governmental red tape?


----------



## limyjack (13 Jun 2005)

I think one of the major things that we should underpin in our governmental system is that times change and thus, the constitution and confederation need to change with them.

By this I mean that when the constitution and confederation were signed, nobody could image today, as such, we have jurisdictional lines of government criss-crossing each other like mad. Therefore a new deal, negotiated and agreed to by all, thereby not allowing for change on a regular basis, would allow for recognition of these types of changes and allow for adjustments in respect of those changes.

Maybe, it could include a requirement to renegotiate the Constitution and confederation every 20 years. I also think that while a PQ government in Quebec would try to hold such a process ranson, such a process on a regular and consistent basis would allow for the airing of regional tensions. This may also allow for the prevention of proportional representation - can you imagine having a bunch of party hacks from any of the parities appointed to the House as opposed to having them elected. We'd end up with both radical and crazy right-wing and left-wing nuts.

In the end this would never happen under a liberal govt, because it does not serve their purpose of power at all costs - however, the party that envisions the next "national railway" for the nation to rally around will undoubtedly change the tone of the political discourse and arouse the sleeping electorate. In the end only the Conservatives can undertake such a plan. Again I would state that Harper, I believe would be a good PM, I simply do not believe he can overcome his image, both perceived and deserving - this tape affair is an absolute lack of leadership on his part.

I agree that are many possible combinations that could fall under such an agreement - however, we never see any of them, only piecemeal silliness, until the effort is undertaken in its entirety


----------



## Zipper (15 Jun 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I completely disagree with the Cities dealing with the Feds. How will the provinces be able to plan the multitude of things they do in and for the cities if the cities can deal directly with the Fed's? If you think we have too much bureaucracy now just wait until the cities start putting lobby groups and special interests forward to the federal government. How much more of our taxes will go to supporting this added layer of governmental red tape?



Thats the whole point. The provinces did not want to lose their power base, nor their access to the taxes (ie. Saving their own jobs/skins). The whole idea of re-writing the constitution to reflect the whole urban idea would be to take away much of the provinces/federal power/tax bases and give it directly to the municipal level. Things such as education and medical would be great as it would allow cities to more directly take care of their own needs closer to where they are understood. Social welfare would also be good on this level as once again it is the cities that see the problems immediately and thus are better able (if they had the means) to handle them. As well, if they had better access to their own tax bases, they would not have to rely so much on "transfer" payments from other "richer" locals to take care of their own problems. You also eliminate at least 2 levels of bureaucracy to look after the same problem.

Will it happen? Probably not. No one, let alone government likes to give up power once they have it. 

Wasn't that the gist in Star Wars III? :blotto:


----------

