Harper Government to be found in Contempt

[Keelandson]

^ I was thinking more along the lines of people crossing the floor.

That isn't a rare occurrence. In 2003, Scott Brison told the Tories to shove it and crossed the floor to the Libs. But it's not a coalition, and no party ever crossed the floor en masse. (Brison's a Reformer at heart, despite being gay. I distrust him.)

 

[The_Reaper]

^Actually, Brison was never a Reformer. Brison was one of the few remaining Progressive Conservatives; he even challenged Peter MacKay for leadership of the party, but backed down on an agreement that MacKay would not merge the party with the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party.

Obviously, we all know how that deal stuck...

So, of course Brison would cross the floor. Reagan said of his time when he was a democrat, that he became a republican because his party had left him; which is the same case for Brison, given that the party he supported no longer existed.

But back to the main part of the thread:

The fact of the matter is that the Harper Conservatives are misconstruing a lot of issues, and Canadians seem to be too apathetic to learn about these things themselves.

John Baird, before the government fell, kept talking about how the people with the most votes were the one who got elected and formed government; but that's not actually how it works in Canada.

We don't directly elected anyone, since we're a Parliamentary democracy. As such, if you want the people who got the most votes, it's actually found in the opposition since their Members of Parliament reflect the 70% of Canadians who voted against the 30% that elected Conservatives.

That's simple mathematics; and if we took Baird's argument, then the opposition should have been in power since 2006, if not in 2004 as well.

And yet, the Harper Conservatives continue to throw around the word coalition like it is a bad thing. Like it is tantamount to treason; when in reality, a coalition is actually more reflective of the democratic process and results. Again, why should the party with 30% lead over the parties who got the remaining 70%?

And since it's been mentioned, I also want to touch slightly on the fighter jets.

Now, I'm not a person who supports the war in Afghanistan for a myriad of reasons. Yet, the Harper Conservatives would have everyone believe that since I don't support the mission, I don't support our troops or don't hope for their well being while they're serving.

That is not true.

And yes, it's hard to argue against the idea that having new fighter jets would protect our troops by giving them modern equipment...

But I don't like the idea of the contract for these jets being sole-sourced without a competitive bidding process. For the Conservatives to award the contract to Lockheed Martin, without due process, is staggering.

After all, I thought Conservatives liked the free market and competition. By sole-sourcing this deal, they're turning their back ideologically but also turning their back on the processes that ensure Canadians aren't being taken advantage of when it comes to government contracts.

Furthermore, it prevented Canadian companies like Bombardier, from being involved in the process. As such, it stunts job growth and economic investment in Canadian businesses when a contract is sole-sourced.

All we're asking is for this deal to be canceled and for it to be replaced with one that is more respective of the bidding process and seeks out the best deal for Canadian taxpayers. Furthermore, perhaps more input from Canada's Armed Forces would help as well in a future contract.

I don't think any Generals, Admirals, or anybody has stepped forward to endorse this deal as what Canada needs for the future; only Conservative Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister have.

And yet, the Conservatives argue like this deal is the best thing for Canadians...When they haven't followed any due process about it.

It's unsurprising then that a Nanos Poll suggests that an overwhelming amount of Canadians don't think now is the time to buy these fighter jets. Maybe if the terms of the deal changed, that would change, but as it stands these jets are likely to become an Albatross for the Conservatives during the campaign.

Canadians are becoming, to borrow a phrase from Garth Turner, Sheeple (sheep-people) led by the spin doctors and media consultants hired by the parties.

I like to think I'm well informed about politics, and I've come to my decisions after carefully considering which party is the one that best represents me. And I hope everyone here has done the same.

If not, I implore you, examine your positions and consider facts. Voting a certain way because it's how your parents voted, or your grandparents; or because that's the candidate that wins anyway, or whatever reason other than careful consideration is a disservice to the democratic process.

Politics is too important and impacts too many people, to be under-informed or worse: ill-informed. Questions are vital to democracy, and we need to questions the sources of our information, if we want to make the best decision.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm just making a general observation about most of the people I know and the way they vote...or those who choose not to vote at all.

That's my peace...

 

[Kulindahr]

I was at the polling booth six months ago. Sure, it was for completely different reasons...but Jesus Christ, the last thing I want to see is more God damn election signs every three feet on every corner.

At least your election campaigns don't go on for a year and a half.

I find the opposition's logic horribly confusing. Yes, I understand Harper's administration has been largely unethical and detrimental to Canadian people. His means are out of hand, yet I believe his intent is just.

You know what they say is paved with good intentions.....

 

[Aaron]

Do you not care? I think the country can be better.

I care, and I agree that the country can be better. But why should I base my vote on ethics when both parties have shown they are cable of the same unethical behaviour? Yeah, the Tories misbehaved. If you really think the Liberals are a more ethical party then you're kidding yourself.

 

[bankside]

It's not just that harper lied about the 30 billion, its that he's planning to spend the 30 billion, without a bid process. Where will the money come from? So is he planning billions in surprise taxes? Or billions in surprise cuts?

If he'd lied about his resume or where he gets his hair cut or whether he chopped down the cherry tree or not I wouldn't give a shit. This will cost us money.

My point is, after 5 years of same-old same-old, I'd give the job to a balding house cat at this point.

 

[Aaron]

We don't directly elected anyone, since we're a Parliamentary democracy. As such, if you want the people who got the most votes, it's actually found in the opposition since their Members of Parliament reflect the 70% of Canadians who voted against the 30% that elected Conservatives.

That's a weak argument. That's not how Canadian elections work. There is no great precedent for coalition governments in Canadian electoral history, and most experiments have failed. Because of that, Canadian's cast votes without considering coalition scenarios which is why they responded with such shock and awe two years ago.

While coalitions are a legitimate parliamentary option, in the current coalition in Britain, the Conservatives already had a plurality, and therefore, based on that and the lack of precedent, I think it's fair to question the legitimacy of parties forming a coalition where no member party has a plurality of the vote. If a plurality of Canadians give a mandate to one party, I question the legitimacy of a "coalition of losers".

It's not reasonable to contest election results based on the popular vote. There have been 12 majority governments since World War II and only 2 have actually enjoyed a mandate from a majority of the voters (two others were at 50.0% even):

1958 - 53.7% (PC)
1949 - 50.1% (Liberal)

If we contested election results based on popular vote every time, we wouldn't have a functioning government. The NDP consistently beat the Bloc in popular vote, but consistently win less seats. In 1993, the PC won over twice the popular vote than the NDP, but only won 2 seats with the NDP winning 9. In 1896, 1926, 1957, 1962, and 1979, the winning party formed government after winning less of the popular vote than the Official Opposition (and there a similar recent example of this in BC). We can't pick and choose when we use the inequities of Single Member Plurality to our advantage and when we don't.

Maybe instead of complaining about a perceived unfairness of minority governments (which do have strong precedent in Canada), we should be demanding electoral reform, which would probably go a long way to solving a lot of our other problems, too. (But if I recall, haven't you and I already had that discussion here and agreed?)

 

[bankside]

Nobody but Jack Layton is talking about a coalition any more. It is a distraction from thinking about how we should govern the country. The Bloc doesn't care, the Liberals are against it. The NDP is for it. And Harper won't say if he'd try it once again if he were in opposition like he wanted to back in 2005. But who would Harper partner up with? The NDP?

There is no coalition. It is a Conservative distraction.

Harper is out of ideas, his supposed fiscal prudence is fraying, and he's trying to cover it up.

 

[The_Reaper]

While coalitions are a legitimate parliamentary option, in the current coalition in Britain, the Conservatives already had a plurality, and therefore, based on that and the lack of precedent, I think it's fair to question the legitimacy of parties forming a coalition where no member party has a plurality of the vote. If a plurality of Canadians give a mandate to one party, I question the legitimacy of a "coalition of losers".

The fact of the matter is, in the UK a 'coalition of losers' (As you call it) was almost a possibility. After the election, there was a lot of time spent between the Liberal Democrats and everyone else, trying to figure out who they would side with to create a coalition government.

It was the unpopular Gordon Brown, and the scandals that were plaguing the Labour Party, that more or less tipped the scales in favour of the Lib-Dems siding with the Conservatives. After all, Labour's policies are closer to the Lib-Dems (Look at the upcoming May Electoral Reform referendum; Labour and Lib-Dems support it, Conservatives don't), but Labour was in dire straights and holding a broken reputation that would only harm the Lib-Dems in the long run.

So the idea that the Lib-Dems only sided with the Conservatives because they won the most seats, isn't exactly true.

And what about Saskatchewan?

In 1999, we had a governing party receive less of the popular vote (38.73%) than the opposition (39.61%); yet the governing party won more seats than the opposition party. We had:
29 NDP
25 Sask Party
4 Liberals

Yet, despite having more seats, the NDP formed a coalition government with the Liberals who were elected.

That is a scenario Canadians should consider; even though the NDP could have taken the Clark/Harper route, and attempted to govern without the aid of the opposition, they reached across the house and found ways to compromise and agree with the opposition.

Harper's never done this, and frankly, he should have. Instead, Harper's been a bully in parliament since he was elected. It doesn't help that the Liberals had a successful surgery to remove their backbone back in 2006 either.

A coalition is what Canadians, and even Harper, have talked about: Parliament coming together to work with one another. And yet, people seem to forget that Harper has run rough-shod over Parliament as much as he possible could; taking the 'my way or an election' stand so many times I've lost count.

So, him saying he wants Parliament to work is hypocritical; given that his definition of making Parliament work is for the other parties to bend to his will unquestioningly.

And I don't recall if we've had an electoral reform argument here before, though I do agree something needs to be done. First past the post is a system that no longer works...

But mixed-member constituencies and party list systems aren't much better.

Personally, I favour instant run-off/alternative vote (1, 2, 3, 4 choice voting) based on a simple 51% quota...

But that's a conversation for another thread.

 

[bankside]

The facts are clear: any person who can command the confidence of the House will be the Prime Minister.

That person doesn't have to come from the biggest party. That person doesn't even have to be elected, though convention dictates that he run for a seat in the Commons as soon as possible.

What is equally clear is Harper is ignoring the law and constitutional customs of his own country, our own country, in order to distract attention from his poor spending choices, budget deception, and the criminal investigations of his staff.

It looks like it is biting him in the ass though. He looked pretty bitter at all the questions about his own coalition deal with Duceppe and Layton back when Martin was PM.

Anyway, let's get back to asking him why he was found in contempt! Billions missing from the budget.

 

[Callum]

At least your election campaigns don't go on for a year and a half.

Yes, but there's entertainment and comedy in American politics. I frequently flick between MSNBC and Fox News for laughs.

 

[FanofFiction]

Callum has a point there. O'Donnell and Palin... I sometimes die laughing. Canadian politicians are much less funny.

 

[Kulindahr]

When there are a dozen or more political ads per hour, it stops being funny really fast.

 

[FanofFiction]

If Elizabeth May started her next speech with, "I am not a witch" I would piss myself.

 

[Callum]

When there are a dozen or more political ads per hour, it stops being funny really fast.

I don't know...by then I'd probably just cancel HBO and all of my other premium stations and just watch American commercials/news. 2007 and 2008 were, to me, the funniest years of television.

Although I suppose to an outsider they'd see the ads as unintentionally hilarious...but there's some entertainment gold in American politics.

 

[Keelandson]

I don't know...by then I'd probably just cancel HBO and all of my other premium stations and just watch American commercials. . . .

AMC movies is the only channel that can make a cartoon short run for three hours.

 

[bankside]

Canadian Election

It's the Queen's idea!

This is how an election actually happens in Canada:

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/2011-03-28-x1/pdf/g2-145x1.pdf