Playing Defense
In a none too shocking move, Tony Valeri has pushed the opposition days back to the end of the House's sitting, dealing a blow to anyone who has a fall election date in their pool. For those who haven't already done the math, if the Tories were to use their first opposition day to bring down the government, that would set us up for a Boxing Day election. It's also fairly obvious the Liberals won't bring forward any confidence motions they wouldn't want to fight an election over.
The CPC has made it clear they won't trigger an election without the NDP but if Jack decides he wants to go now, that means we're back to bizarre parliamentary conventions and procedures no one has ever heard about. It wouldn't surprise me to see a quasi-confidence vote which could force the new GG into an awkward position.
The CPC has made it clear they won't trigger an election without the NDP but if Jack decides he wants to go now, that means we're back to bizarre parliamentary conventions and procedures no one has ever heard about. It wouldn't surprise me to see a quasi-confidence vote which could force the new GG into an awkward position.
posted by calgarygrit at
3:03 a.m.
23 Comments:
I think the CPC is done with the bizarre procedural moves. The Liberals ignored them in the spring and I don't see why they wouldn't just ignore them again.
By
Greg Staples, at 8:49 a.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac says:
Why even have opposition days? It doesn't really matter, its just for show. As Greg said up there, there is not chance the government would recognize anything that happened on an opposition day anyway.
I say drop them and cut the session short, save the money and build some social housing with the savings.
There is no point in pretending that this Liberal government believes in democracy.
By
Anonymous, at 9:13 a.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Concerned Albertan, at 10:09 a.m.
People who believe the Canadian government is antidemocratic, do not understand the fundamental nature of Canadian democracy and the system of responsible government.
If you would enjoy seperation of powers, maybe move to our neighbor in the south, plagued with pork barrel politics, and legislative compromise.
Finally, if you believe Harper would ever build social housing, you have another thing coming.
By
Concerned Albertan, at 10:10 a.m.
"Plagued by legislative compromise"
-yeah, compromise is a terrible thing, you know. Much better to have a "democracy" without compromise. That's freedom!
Also, thanks for telling me to leave the country because I don't like the Liberals under Paul Martin. More democracy, I suppose? I guess I don't understand this subtle Canadian democracy where if you don't buy into 1 set of ideas, you are asked to leave the country.
Finally, I believe Harper would have more social housing built in 3 years than Paul Martin. He won't announce spending and flit off to some other flower. He'll do it.
Give Harper a minority to prove you wrong. The poor will thank you.
By
Anonymous, at 11:11 a.m.
Kyle, are you being sarcastic? or for real? If for real, you sound like you are a typical lefty. Let's hear your explanation of "Canadian democracy and system of responsible government" and how restriction of free discussion and criticism is not totalitarian.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 a.m.
If you would enjoy seperation of powers, maybe move to our neighbor in the south,
Canada, love it or leave it.
You sound just like a yank.
By
Nastyboy, at 12:20 p.m.
"Finally, I believe Harper would have more social housing built in 3 years than Paul Martin. He won't announce spending and flit off to some other flower. He'll do it.
Give Harper a minority to prove you wrong. The poor will thank you."
Beyond Stephen Harper's deeply ingrained libertarian beliefs, he has made a multitude of brash statements in the past which makes the above post seem absurd. One that comes to mind is his labelling of Canada as a "third rate socialistic country." He has vigoursly condemned ALL universality in Federal programs and not unlike many of his more vocally religious Reform/now Conservative caucus members, tends to direct blame to the sick and the poor. For Harper it is based on his ideology of complete and total individualism, for others like Monte Solberg (catering more to the religious-right) being impoverished or ill has an underlying blame of "sin" attached.
There may be some multi-national corporations with deep ties to the U.S. armament empire who MAY thank you for voting for Stephen Harper, but I doubt that the poor and vulnerable of our society will feel ANY gratitude!
By
Anonymous, at 1:12 p.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac responsds to Fran Irwin:
I will explain something to you:
We are conservatives because we believe conservative solutions will increase the sum of happiness and life satisfaction for ALL Canadians, while other options do not.
Don't tell me that we don't give a crap about the poor.
If anyone doesn't its you and your ilk. You want a vast pool of poor, miserable people amongst the electorate because that is your voting base. Without them under your feet and suffering, you don't get power.
To reference the industrio-military complex of America is well, cute.
If anything, your paranoid rantings about said complex makes them happy because it reminds the US government that it has enemies everywhere and must spend like mad to defend itself.
The poor people of Canada will soon realize you are parasites feeding off their discontent.
The American industrio-military complex will thank you because without you, people might actually find peace.
By
Anonymous, at 1:35 p.m.
I haven't heard one word from Harper on social housing. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Also his stances on a lot of issues seem a little... umm underwhelming.
I also think that most Canadians see Harper as power hungry. I don't care about the means, ie liberal media or whatnot, it's still the belief of many Canadians.
As for you being Conservative because you think that the ideology will help all Canadians, well I'm left of centre for that exact same reason. 8 years of Mike Harris style of governing has left us with lethal water (walkerton) inadequate emergency preparednedd (SARS) and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which is crumbling infrastructure and a practically broke Toronto.
So thanks but no thanks to Harper.
By
Paladiea, at 1:49 p.m.
Oh and I forgot to mention the 6 billion dollar debt they left behind.
By
Paladiea, at 1:51 p.m.
QuebecHarperManiac:
Paldiea,
On Harris, I could throw that back at you regarding the lies the Parti Quebecois in Quebec or NDP in BC told with their budgets. I won't because there's bad governments from all political spectrums. (Plus, Quebec dreams of the employment rates you have in Ontario!)
On Harper & Social Housing. You are right as far as I know, I haven't heard him specifically mention it. I have heard Martin and Layton say a whole bunch about it - but not actually built anything. Spending annoucements don't keep homeless people warm in the winter. So pardon me if I puke about the "caring" from the NDP/Grits. I want RESULTS.
By
Anonymous, at 2:05 p.m.
I want results too, but to assume that Harper would consider the homeless a priority when he hasn't said so is wishful thinking.
In the defence of the NDP, they haven't been in power so they can't really dictate what's going on.
I refuse to defend the Liberals.
By
Paladiea, at 2:15 p.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac says:
Paladeia,
Think about it. A minority Tory government. Jack in the driver's seat. Liberals lick wounds and find a decent person to head up their show. Harper wants to prove he ain't Satan.
To me, that scenario smacks of serious progress.
PS. Jack does claim he helped families out with the NDP budget this spring. It broke my heart because just because money went into a file called "social housing" doesn't mean it actually gets spent on social housing.
(I like Jack, so don't get me wrong on this.)
By
Anonymous, at 2:24 p.m.
Not really, I think the best would be an Green minority (ha like that'll ever happen...) with an NDP opposition.
The Greens are pretty centred with a focus on the environment and the NDP could push them into more social endeavours while being financially responsible a la the Greens ;)
By
Paladiea, at 2:34 p.m.
As for reality, heh.. Umm I would vote CPC if Harper wasn't the leader. I just don't like the guy, what can I say.
By
Paladiea, at 2:35 p.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac says:
No. Paulsy can't survive two minorities.
Even though the Grits display their usual (and excellent) discipline before the camera, there has to be alot of angry, disappointed Liberals out there who are as uncomfortable with Martin as the rest of us are.
By
Anonymous, at 2:57 p.m.
QuebecHarperManiac said:
"On Harris, I could throw that back at you regarding the lies the Parti Quebecois in Quebec or NDP in BC told with their budgets."
For the record, the BC NDP were actually running a surplus before the 2000 election. Campbell claimed they weren't during the campaign, but the real numbers show otherwise. In fact, they racked up the largest surplus in BC history to that date - a total of $1.56 billion.
See the chart at:
www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/05/LibsBigFib/
I apologise for straying off topic, but I sometimes need to correct blatant misinformation. Not that I blame QuebecHarpermaniac for not knowing this - the BC Liberals had everyone convinced that the NDP were lying about their surplus.
By
Anonymous, at 3:53 p.m.
Wonder what Martin would do if ALL 3 party's voted on a non-binding non-confidence motion in the coming weeks? Would he take the hint and call and election or ignore it?
By
Anonymous, at 4:06 p.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac responds:
Deanna,
Thanks for the clarification. I defer to your knowledge on this point. Of course, they were still wiped out, so obviously they did something that made most of BC want a massive change in government.
My point is not to pick on any specific government, just to make the point that bad government comes in all political stripes.
Corollary: good government can come in all political stripes.
Give Harper a minority and he will prove this point.
By
Anonymous, at 4:13 p.m.
Ya, an NDP government would be grand. I heard Sven is going to run again and if they win, wouldn't he would make a fine minister of finance?
By
Anonymous, at 6:15 p.m.
I tend to find discussions of social housing a red herring. Admittedly there are intances in which housing isn't available at what to many would be an affordable rate. This is generally due municiple zoning regulations as opposed to some lack of spending on the part of the federal government. There are already hundred of millions of dollars allocated to social housing that haven't been spent by the federal government.
As to whether Conservatives "care about the poor", I'd say most conservatives are inclined to be indulgent of those who run into hard times and need some time to get their act together. However, those who stay on welfare programs for years and who works two monthes of the year and then sit on EI for the rest of it aren't about to get see our hearts bleed for their troubles. Our general prescription is "get a job" and be the catalyst to ameliorating your situation. A different view from the left who think everything is society's problem - I and many others tend to think the primary responsibility falls on the individual to cope and take what measures are prudent. Yes, there is an argument to be made for relief in exceptional circumstances. However, the notion that you've a permanent unending claim on others to feed, cloth and house you for the rest of your life by virtue of your existance is absolute and utter tripe.
By
Chris, at 2:44 a.m.
QuebecHarpermaniac says:
Certainly, I'm not advocating making people dependent on the government for sustenance.
Certainly, like all Tories, I think the best remedy for anyone is getting a job.
However and respectfully, we say "get a job" because we care about the poor. We tell them the truth: life is about shovelling shit. No escaping that life is tough. We don't try to lie to them and pretend that they can live off the tax receipts of Asper and Bronfman.
They can't do so, because fat cats like Paul Martin, when they see their tax receipts going to the poor, move their assets out of the country and pay taxes to less socialistic governments.
By
Anonymous, at 9:09 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home