Liberals pass bill

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jun 24 2005, 03:52 PM

Uhhhh......yes.

They were perceived that way because thats how the Liberals spun them...the whole "hidden agenda" thing once again. Lots of spinning.

As you admit...they ran candidates across the country(sans Quebec for obvious reasons)...but they werent a federal party? Is this what your trying to say? Bottom line...they were a Federal party no different than the Fibs, the PC's or the NDP. They happened to be Western born and bred.

The "perception" as you call it, was a media creation spawned by the left. Nothing new there. They are masters at it. Good for them in doing so as well. Doesn't change the facts however.

IIRC they won 50 seats the first time around in 4 provinces. Sounds like a Federal party to me.

Gee you think everybody just starts thinking whatever the Liberals spin?

Hell no, people decided for themselves based on a lot of different things.

We're not all sheep who blindly believe everything the Liberals say. And frankly that insinuation by Conservatives is insulting.

I have never denied they were a Federal party. The point I'm trying to make is that most people didn't think that they would represent them, the perception was that they were born out of Western Canada and had an agenda based on that.

[Lurch]

IIRC they won 50 seats the first time around in 4 provinces. Sounds like a Federal party to me.

Your memory is good in a way - they won 52 seats in 1993. However, they only ran candidates in 207 of 295 ridings. With 75 seats in Quebec, that leaves 18 uncontested by Reform outside Quebec.

Reform actually ran in 1988 as well, in 3 provinces only - and they weren't Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That might have something to do with the perception they started as a purely western party.

[transplant99]

How many of those 50 seats did they win East of Manitoba?

none...what's your point? That they cant be a federal party because those in the east didnt vote for them? What the hell does that make the Liberals? A regional party?

Their platform promoted Western political views, and every MP they elected came from the West. Get your head out of the sand. It's not liberal media spin. It's factual.

No..their platform promoted NON LIBERAL views, heck Conservative even. So if you agree that the Liberal party is an Eastern based party...then fine, I concede that the reformers were Western based...but that HARDLY makes them unqualified to be a FEDERAL party.

Speaking of head in sand...or elsewhere.

Why do you think the rebranded themselves as the Alliance? Because they wanted to shake the image that Reform was a Western protest party.

Thanks for proving my point.

It was the IMAGE....doesn't mean that's what it was in reality.

I guess that any party spawned in the West...now has to branded as a "Western Protest Party".

Where were the Liberals formed again? OH yeah...so I asssume they are nothing more than an "Eastern Protest Party", where the elections are decided.

Another hypocracy coming from the Fiberal side.

[transplant99]

Gee you think everybody just starts thinking whatever the Liberals spin?

Hell no, people decided for themselves based on a lot of different things.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth...your very good at that.

Read what I said...the MEDIA took the spin from the Liberals and ran with it. Again, I applaud the political slickness of the Libs to be able to do this time and time again.

Where do you think that the "people who decided for themselves" got their information? Lets start with the Liberal CBC and go from there.

We're not all sheep who blindly believe everything the Liberals say. And frankly that insinuation by Conservatives is insulting.

Making stuff up again...your so predictable.

I have never denied they were a Federal party. The point I'm trying to make is that most people didn't think that they would represent them, the perception was that they were born out of Western Canada and had an agenda based on that.

Yes..again...that word PERCEPTION comes up.

YES they were Western based...jeezuz thats the whole point of the argument. BECAUSE tey were born out of Calagary, that immediately made them a "Western Protest" party as your colleague likes to call them. Fine then.

I'll ask you then...does that make the LIberals an "Eastern Protest" party? If not...how is that NOT a double standard?

[transplant99]

That might have something to do with the perception they started as a purely western party.

Perception? They WERE a FEDERAL party BORN in the West. How does that make them PURELY Western?

Do ALL political parties have to be born of Ontario or Quebec to have a tag of legitimacy as a Federal Party? Is that it?

Im really curious on this answer.

[moon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Jun 24 2005, 08:56 AM

You could use proportional representation for the Senate, for example. In 2004 47% of Alberta went PC, plus another 9% for the Alliance. That's 56% on the right or far right. In seats, its over 75% right wing. Your stand is interesting, in that 44% of Albertans have no say in government provincially, which seems to be ok. However, federally, this is an atrocity somehow that Alberta has no say, or a small say at best since we are the minority. If you want change, start in your own backyard and lead by example.

I have no problem with making it proportional. Still more than 50% for Klein so how would it control him.

How did I say it was an atriocity? I said if Alberta is going to have people representing them then they should choose who it is. If Alberta has a Senate then it should be elected as well. Never said I had a problem with that.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jun 24 2005, 03:50 PM
1. Martin did nothing wrong using political tactics last night, he played politics and won

2. Harper would have been just as justified if roles reversed

3. I'm not a fan of our current senate, I like the idea of voting senators, but limiting their power to something as just a check against Parliament.

4. Reform started, became the Alliance with SOME merger to the PC's, then full merger formed the CPC, with a leader who was from Calgary and one of the old gaurds of the Reform party. It seems to be (atleast the outlook out here) that the Reform Party is just adding members and changing their name.

5. Yes the reform party ran candidates across Canada, and so did the Alliance, but in my riding both guys were in fact parachuted in.

6. Until the CPC gets a leader from Ontario or Quebec then they'll be seen as a Western based party... and until Harper goes they'll never form government. I said it before and I'll say it again, HARPER IS A BAD LEADER! (usually responded by so's Martin, but Martin's actually playing the game well in parliament).

Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.

7. People are crying that it's a federal party, but looking at it from a Western Viewpoint. Either it's a Western Party with no history of scandal, or it's a federal party with the blemish of Airbus, not balancing the budget when promised instead making the debt much larger, etc.

8. Canada, UK, and New Zeland use the same form of governance, I think Australia's is different than the Wesminster system, but I could be wrong on that. There are no other Commonwealth countires that use the same model.


Few short thoughts, tear them apart as you see fit, as after all I'm from the Evil East (I like that term... I hope it sticks :P)

1. I agree. Nothing wrong with what he did, it was clever IMO.
3.Why is that? Just wondering......as someone from the east is it because you may be afraid that there will be too much Western influence? Once again just wonering.
5.Where were they parachuted in from?
6.Harper is from Ontario
8.you're comparing countries that have nowhere near the land mass, and diversity of Canada. Just because these systems work in the UK or New Zealand doesn't mean they will work here. Apples and oranges to me.

[MarchHare]

3.Why is that? Just wondering......as someone from the east is it because you may be afraid that there will be too much Western influence? Once again just wonering.

Keep in mind that "the East" isn't some unified region. The Atlantic provinces have significantly different views than Ontario and Quebec on many issues, and in both the 1997 and 2000 elections the Maritimes voted overwhelming for the PC and NDP parties, not the Liberals. If we had a senate where every province had the same number of senators, a Maritimer would have nothing to fear about Western influence because Atlantic Canada would have even more power than the West

Why people in the West support that idea boggles me. Yes, it does take away power from Ontario and Quebec (so I can understand the desire there), but it gives unprecedented power to Atlantic Canadians, who would see their senators form a voting bloc with 40% of the senate's power on the vast majority of issues.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'm not sure there's any point arguing with you Tranny. You've obviously decided that you view the Reform a certain way and that everybody else should as well when that's not how it was.

As for them being a party born out of the west, no they don't have to be born out of the east to be legitimate. But if a party is perceived as a Western protest party then people not living in the West are not going to think they will represent them very well. And of course you have the fact that in general the west is more conservative in philosophy and the reform was a very conservative party.

So I think there's two reasons they didn't succeed. They were too far to the right to gain widespread acceptance and whether you like to admit it or not there was a perception that they held the interests of the west higher than the rest of the country. As I've said in the past, I think our first past the poll system encourages these regionalistic generalizations. The Liberals are widely supported across most of the country as are the Alliance. But our system makes it look like Ontario is hardcore Liberal while Alberta is hardcore Conservative and that really doesn't tell the whole story.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jun 24 2005, 08:50 AM
6. Until the CPC gets a leader from Ontario or Quebec then they'll be seen as a Western based party... and until Harper goes they'll never form government. I said it before and I'll say it again, HARPER IS A BAD LEADER! (usually responded by so's Martin, but Martin's actually playing the game well in parliament).

Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.

Becuase, of course, westerners are inferior to people from Ontario and Quebec, therefore cannot govern.

And yes, I know you are generalizing, and not necessaraly speaking for yourself, but I just love how people from Ontario and points eastward carry this attitude, and then suggest that we are just "whiners" or "selfish" because we hate how this government ignores or tramples us. Of course, part of the reason for preferring an Eastern based leader is that such a leader is much less likely to rock the boat and change Confederation to be more equitable for all provinces. Alberta and BC are the least important provinces politically, and people out east like it fine that way.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by fotze@Jun 24 2005, 09:34 AM
Do you want to know the best nickname for the Liberals? The Fiberals!. AHAHAHHAHAHAH

I always liked "Liberanos" myself, but I never wanted to admit it before, as I would hate to then be associated with the KKK...

[MarchHare]

Alberta and BC are the least important provinces politically

Tell that to someone from PEI, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia.

As for people wanting a CPC leader not from the West, you're mistaking the reasoning. Nobody thinks Albertans are unfit to run the country or that people from Ontario are superior or anything. It's as simple as this:

Albertans (and I think you'll agree with me on this), are generally more right-wing than the average Canadian. In fact, it's fair to say that the most radically conservative Canadians are normally found in Alberta. If the CPC had a leader from Ontario, he or she would likely be viewed as more moderate and having the interests of more Canadians -- not just Westerners -- in mind. Whether you like it or not, I can tell you with absolute certainty that so long as the CPC keeps electing leaders from Alberta, they will continue to be seen as a Western protest party. Electing a non-Western leader would go a very long way to changing the party's image to a truly national alternative to the Liberals.

And this isn't all about Ontario wanting to keep the current system where they have all the power either. The CPC is even less popular in Atlantic Canada (according to recent polls) than they are in Ontario, even though (as I said earlier), the Maritimes would have unprecedented power if we gave each province an equal voice in the senate.

[Lurch]

Perception? They WERE a FEDERAL party BORN in the West. How does that make them PURELY Western?

Do ALL political parties have to be born of Ontario or Quebec to have a tag of legitimacy as a Federal Party? Is that it?

Im really curious on this answer.

Not sure if this is addressed to me or just anyone who sees the Reform as coming from the West, but as I noted earlier Reform ran candidates solely in the West in 1988. Clearly this could lead some to believe their roots were a western protest party without being weak minded Liberal voters.

The Progressive Conservatives were seen as a national party until 1993, I believe. IMO, it's because they won support across the entire country. For example, take the 1993 election. Liberals won a minimum of 25% of the popular vote in EVERY province. Reform: 52% in AB and 1% in PEI. Even the PC party of the day won a minimum of 11% in EVERY province. National support, IMO, implies that the party represents interests that are common across Canada.

Now look at 2004. Reform merged into the CPC, came to the middle to a degree and is much more representative of national interests. For example: Liberal minimum of 22% (Alberta), CPC minimum 9% in Quebec (28% minimum support excluding Quebec and Territories). A national presence, unlike Reform.

My take on it is that if you want to be a national party, you must be able to speak to at least some portion of voters in every province. 1% does not cut it, as such Reform was a western party IMO. Reform/Canadian Alliance did not ever get national support, while the CPC did. CPC is still dominated by its Reform past in voters minds, but I don't see how you can blame that on anything other than reality and the history of the party.

[Resolute 14]

Tell that to someone from PEI, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia.

PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have 25MPs for about 1.8 million people.

Alberta has 28 MPs for 3.2 million people.

B.C. has 36MPs for 4.2 million people.

Parties dont have to work for nearly as many votes to win a seat in Atlantic Canada than they do in BC or Alberta.


And yes, you are right that an Albertans are generally more right leaning. However, to simply assume that a leader has to be from the east to escape that "stigma" is a rather unfair generalization to Albertans that do lean more towards the centre, and is also little more than enabling a stereotype.

And this isn't all about Ontario wanting to keep the current system where they have all the power either. The CPC is even less popular in Atlantic Canada (according to recent polls) than they are in Ontario, even though (as I said earlier), the Maritimes would have unprecedented power if we gave each province an equal voice in the senate.

I do agree with you on the senate somewhat. Adopting the EEE senate would necessitate reducing Atlantic Canada's representation in the HoC to proper levels that match it's population. ie: PEI would only have one MP. Of course, that would also mean Ontario gets it's representation increased to match it's population.

However, there is nothing wrong with Atlantic Canada or the West controlling 40% of the senate - unless you are from Ontario or Quebec. But then, that is why the HoC is overwhelmingly slanted in their favor.

Checks and balances. One house distributed by population, the other by region.

[MarchHare]

PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have 25MPs for about 1.8 million people.

Alberta has 28 MPs for 3.2 million people.

B.C. has 36MPs for 4.2 million people.

Parties dont have to work for nearly as many votes to win a seat in Atlantic Canada than they do in BC or Alberta.

I'm sure you're aware that the population:MP ratio is even worse in Ontario, right? Alberta and BC actually have more MPs per capita than Ontario does.

However, there is nothing wrong with Atlantic Canada or the West controlling 40% of the senate - unless you are from Ontario or Quebec. But then, that is why the HoC is overwhelmingly slanted in their favor.

Checks and balances. One house distributed by population, the other by region.

In theory I do like the idea of a EEE senate, and I 100% support allowing elected senators. Where I have the problem is with the idea that the senate should be equal by province or region. Suppose a senate bill is supported by Quebec, Ontario, BC, and Alberta, but is opposed by the four Atlantic Provinces, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. The bill would be defeated, even though it had the support from representatives of over 80% of the country's population. That doesn't sit well with me. I also don't like the idea of 8% of the nation's population (Atlantic Canada) having 40% of the power in the senate, and I'm still a Maritimer at heart!

I think discussing how our senate should be changed (and I do agree that change is needed) is a topic best left to another thread, though.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 09:42 AM

....That being said, how is it not hypocrisy for Harper to occuse the Liberals of making deals with the separatists? Harper did the exact same thing less than a month ago...

What exact same thing did Harper do? What "deal" did he make with the Bloc? The Bloc were already voting against the budget (and have at EVERY vote), Harper didn't have to "pay" them in any way shape or form to change their votes. So what deal was there? What did the Bloc get in return? Nothing.

But they DID from Martin.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 04:40 PM

Why people in the West support that idea boggles me. Yes, it does take away power from Ontario and Quebec (so I can understand the desire there), but it gives unprecedented power to Atlantic Canadians, who would see their senators form a voting bloc with 40% of the senate's power on the vast majority of issues.

God no! Equal power across the country!!! Why would Westerners want that???

BTW It's not about who has more power, it's more about equalizing it across the country so Ontario isn't continually controlling Western Canada.

[MarchHare]

What exact same thing did Harper do? What "deal" did he make with the Bloc? The Bloc were already voting against the budget (and have at EVERY vote), Harper didn't have to "pay" them in any way shape or form to change their votes. So what deal was there? What did the Bloc get in return? Nothing.

But they DID from Martin.

What "deal" did Martin make? He gave them a written guarantee that he'd bring a vote on a bill he was going to bring a vote for anyway. He gave them nothing new...there were no concessions to Bloc demands, nothing.

Yes, they voted together on a motion. And so did the Conservatives and the Bloc last month (and even again last night on C-48). So for Harper to accuse the Liberals of allying with separatists is the height of hypocrisy.

[MarchHare]

God no! Equal power across the country!!! Why would Westerners want that???

It's not equal power across the country. It gives disproportionate power to smaller provinces.

Do you really think it's fair that PEI (population: 137,000) would have the same amount of power as Alberta's 3+ million citizens?

BTW It's not about who has more power, it's more about equalizing it across the country so Ontario isn't continually controlling Western Canada.

Actually, you'd then see Atlantic Canada setting the national agenda. Do you really want a region with a "culture of defeatism" dependant on hand-outs from Ottawa controlling Western Canada?

[Resolute 14]

I'm sure you're aware that the population:MP ratio is even worse in Ontario, right?# Alberta and BC actually have more MPs per capita than Ontario does.

I am fully aware of that, and I even stated that going to a EEE Senate would necessitate rebalancing the house properly. I specifically mentioned Ontario getting more MPs.

In theory I do like the idea of a EEE senate, and I 100% support allowing elected senators.# Where I have the problem is with the idea that the senate should be equal by province or region.# Suppose a senate bill is supported by Quebec, Ontario, BC, and Alberta, but is opposed by the four Atlantic Provinces, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.# The bill would be defeated, even though it had the support from representatives of over 80% of the country's population.

Well, it is extremely unlikely that provincial senators would vote for or against a bill in such a rigid bloc, but really, in such an extreme example, the bill would deserve to fail. Any bill that has the universal condemnation of six provinces obviously is not written with the interests of all Canadians in mind.