40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

?

This was the longest standing and most productive minority government in Canadian history.

3 budgets were passed, at least 7 major policy initiatives were implemented including cutting taxes writ-large, an unpopular war effort was maintained, and an election wasn't even triggered by parliament.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a majority government in the past 20 years that has accomplished more.

Yes, they did get quite a bit accomplished most of it at the beginning of the term. As of late however, the opposition cleary did not want to pass any legislation if possible and did their hardest by using their majority in committees to stall the legislation.

What I find funny is that Dion is blasting Harper over calling an election (which I believe he should have done differently) yet tells the Canadian people that this is the most important election in our life times. Well, if it is that important than shouldn't Harper have called the election?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It didn't have to be an either/or situation. The NDP asked for an amendment so that homosexual teens would have the same rights as heterosexual teens. The Conservatives refused to make the change. I'd love to know why the Conservatives refused to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

So you did know that the NDP voted for Bill C-2 which included the "age of consent" provision, yet you post here claiming that the NDP were against raising the "age of consent" from 14 to 16 and suggesting that they would change it back. That's what I meant by maliciously spreading lies.

They were against raising the age of consent ever since private member bills had been put forward 9 years ago. Most NDP did vote for C-2 but like I said, there were many different provisions in the bill regarding criminal justice and I believe that if a) they voted specifically for the age of consent issue, they would have voted against it and b) had the liberals showed up to vote in favour the NDP would have voted against it. That is just my belief and we will never know.

Oh, and whats with Layton no coming out with this new terminolofy of so called "green collared workers" I find it pathetic.

[mykalberta]

The NDP would do well with the working man if they simply didnt have the far far far left wing of the party. Their core values should appeal to all working people but its the wild extremes that drive people away, and they will always do that.

[MarchHare]

You'd be hard-pressed to find a majority government in the past 20 years that has accomplished more.

Do you genuinely believe that? Or are you just ignorant of recent Canadian history?

Trudeau's majorities accomplished all kinds of changes (for better or worse), not the least of which was the Constitution Act (1982) which gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Granted, this occurred outside of your 20 year limit, but it's still fairly recent.

Mulroney's majorities signed the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, gave us the GST, ended the NEP, and introduced the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords (which, after being approved by parliament, were defeated by the provincial legislatures in Manitoba & Newfoundland and the Canadian citizens in a national referendum, respectively).

Chretien's three majority governments balanced the budget, passed the Clarity Act, and expanded the previous FTA to include Mexico and became NAFTA. Additionally, it was with Chretien as PM that our armed forces got involved in the Afghanistan conflict and stayed out of the Iraq invasion.

Nobody is going to agree with everything that those governments accomplished, but compared to those three majorities, Harper's minority (and Martin's before it) hasn't really done all that much aside from maintain the status quo. Has this minority government been more productive than other minorities? Surely it accomplished more than Martin's 2004-2005 government, but it didn't pass a single piece of legislation as significant as the major contributions of Pearson's minority in the 60s which gave Canada universal healthcare, the CPP, and our national flag.

[Ronald Pagan]

I agree mostly, which is why I qualified my statement.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a majority government in the past 20 years that has accomplished more.

So thanks for the history lesson of counter-arguments that are irrelevant to my point.

Mulroney's second term brought us free-trade and a failed constitutional agreement.

Chretien's majorities were largely status quo.

You accurately describe the last five years.

So my point still stands, this minority government has drafted and enacted as much important legislation as the majorities (by-in-large). To say that this minority has been emaciated is, in my opinion, not correct.

Your comparison to the Pearson minority is interesting but it fails to mention a key difference. One party, the NDP, held the balance of power with Pearson allowing a significant amount of legislation and policy to pass. Canada's parliament has been constipated not by a minority government so much as the presence of the Bloc and no one party holding the balance.

[MarchHare]

Mulroney's second term brought us free-trade and a failed constitutional agreement.

Free Trade was far more significant than anything Harper's minority has done. Ditto with the GST (as unpopular as it was/is), which was also passed in Mulroney's second term.

Chretien's majorities were largely status quo.

Obviously I have a different view, but debating this is probably beyond the scope of this thread. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the accomplishments of Chretien's governments.

So my point still stands, this minority government has drafted and enacted as much important legislation as the majorities (by-in-large). To say that this minority has been emaciated is, in my opinion, not correct.

I agree that Harper's repeated claims that this parliament isn't working is unfounded given how easily he's been able to pass legislation in the last 2+ years, but overall his accomplishments have been pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Certainly he hasn't done anything as important as balancing the budget, signing the FTA/NAFTA, or even legalizing gay marriage.

[LChoy]

not sure if this belongs here or a new thread
The Green Party has been barred from the Leader's Debate
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/s...s-debates.html

I don't know, I wasn't planning on voting Green, but with support from across the country and their very first MP, I thought they should have been included
Thoughts on CP?

[FFR]

^^. I'm torn...so to speak. Sure they have an MP, but it wasn't an elected MP, so to say that they are now represented in the House of Commons is a bit of a twist. They weren't voted in so how they can claim to have support of that riding is beyond me. Sure there is a defiite increase in their support levels throughour the country but that's a different story all together.

IMO, they shouldn't be included. They don't (really) have a seat in the House of Commons, and don't have a large percentage of support in the country. Now, I also have questions about the Bloc being included in national debates as well. They have support in Quebec only. They don't even run candidates outside of Quebec. I just don't see how they should be included in a nationwide debate when they don't care about the rest of the nation.

[Ronald Pagan]

The Green Party should be there ahead of the Bloc.

[Incinerator]

Good, if we let Elizabeth May in why don't the CBC let the Marijuana Party & Communist Party join the debate too? This is a major parties' leaders debate, not a "My fringe party don't have any elected MPs but I want to show how dumb my platform is" debate.

An Independent who crossed the floor against the will of his riding doesn't count as an elected MP of the Greens by the way.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by FFR

Now, I also have questions about the Bloc being included in national debates as well. They have support in Quebec only. They don't even run candidates outside of Quebec. I just don't see how they should be included in a nationwide debate when they don't care about the rest of the nation.

Agreed, they should only include Duceppe in the French debates. Nobody in the rest of the country is interested in hearing what he has to say, and they certainly don't care what the rest of the country think of the Bloc. Having them in the National English broadcast is about as pointless as it gets.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Good, if we let Elizabeth May in why don't the CBC let the Marijuana Party & Communist Party join the debate too? This is a major parties' leaders debate, not a "My fringe party don't have any elected MPs but I want to show how dumb my platform is" debate.

An Independent who crossed the floor against the will of his riding doesn't count as an elected MP of the Greens by the way.

Well they did receive 7% of the vote last time did they not? I think that warrants allowing her to partake. She'd probably shoot herself in the foot the wacko..

I don't really care about the fact that there's another election. Think about how much it actually means to you personally. Hell, there is a LARGE faction of people on this site, and in the general public who won't even bother to go to the polls. So what difference does it make if we've have 3 elections in the last 4 years?

The best part about this is that it certainly kills Bill C-61. Until something similar is re-introduced.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Agreed, they should only include Duceppe in the French debates. Nobody in the rest of the country is interested in hearing what he has to say, and they certainly don't care what the rest of the country think of the Bloc. Having them in the National English broadcast is about as pointless as it gets.

I agree with that 100%. The Bloc can plead their case too Quebec voters, but as for the rest of Canada it's pointless. I also think the Bloc may lose a bit of ground this time around within their own province.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I agree with that 100%. The Bloc can plead their case too Quebec voters, but as for the rest of Canada it's pointless. I also think the Bloc may lose a bit of ground this time around within their own province.

I think you're right. They are targetting 50% of the seats as a success there..which is down from the 50% of the popular vote that Duceppe started with last time (he wasn't anywhere near this and was backtracking quickly as the election progressed!).

[Cube Inmate]

Random thoughts....

1) It's a "French Language" and an "English Language" debate, not a "Quebec" and "Rest of Canada" debate. UNFORTUNATELY, if you're going to allow the Bloc to participate in one, you've got to allow them in the other. There are plenty of Anglophone Quebecers and Francophone RoCers. Also unfortunately, the leaders treat the French debate as their chance to pander to Quebecers, and Gilles treats the English debate as an opportunity to ... I don't know..?

2) It's a "Leaders' Debate," not a sh*t-disturbers' debate. Lizzie May has no more claim to a spot in the debates, IMO, than the leader of any other communist parties may exist in Canada right now. If you allow 15 people in, it's no longer a debate...it's a round-table, or something to that effect. I want to know about the people who will lead the country...not the ones who will try to tear it apart by nipping at the heels of the actual leaders.

3) WTF are "Working Families(TM)?" Apparently they're the families consisting of people too dumb to realize that Jack is just using a euphemism for "blue-collar" workers. Why aren't blue-collar workers offended by this? I have a lot of respect for the tradesmen and their skills...why doesn't Jack? I work...my wife works...but for some reason I don't think that Jack's talking about me when he's referring to working families.

Ah well... now I'll go back and read what's happened in this thread since last night.

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Random thoughts....



2) It's a "Leaders' Debate," not a sh*t-disturbers' debate. Lizzie May has no more claim to a spot in the debates, IMO, than the leader of any other communist parties may exist in Canada right now. If you allow 15 people in, it's no longer a debate...it's a round-table, or something to that effect. I want to know about the people who will lead the country...not the ones who will try to tear it apart by nipping at the heels of the actual leaders.



Ah well... now I'll go back and read what's happened in this thread since last night.

Let me get this straight. You don't want parties on a televised debate that will tear it apart?? Then why would you want the BQ there?? The Green Party will likely get 8-10% of the popular vote, I doubt the NDP wil get 18% of the vote. Yet, because their voters are concentrated in certain regions of the country, they are considered an extremely legitimate party that deserves almost equal billing to the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Rather than using extreme statements, maybe you should focus on the fact that the Green Party isn't the Mary Jane party or the Communist party. They garner a significant portion of the vote and consider that this party has made significant inroads in the last decade when it comes to vote gathering.

This country is not a two party system like the U.S. where individuals have to choose one or the other. If you have criteria for which party should or should not be allowed to represent themselves on national debates, please express them. And you should also question why Jarack Layton and Sweaters Harper are so insistent on not letting the Green Party in. I'll give you the NDP's reason right now. The NDP is the supposed alternate choice after the two main parties. The possibility of the Green's replacing them as that alternate has become a credible threat to their power and base. I'm not sure why the Conservatives wouldn't want them there. Right now, the conservatives must be the luckiest party in Canadian history. You have three left leaning parties splitting votes and only one right of center party.

If there is no right of center alternative prior to the next election. I'm gonna run as a pseudo Neo-Con. I'll rail against homosexuals, immigrants, atheists and uppity city folk. Maybe I'll be able to steal 5-7 points from the Conservatives. Then the conservatives will realize how fortunate they have it right now. Lucky Blue punks.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I don't really care about the fact that there's another election. Think about how much it actually means to you personally. Hell, there is a LARGE faction of people on this site, and in the general public who won't even bother to go to the polls. So what difference does it make if we've have 3 elections in the last 4 years?

Our tax dollars supporting election campaigns?

[Devils'Advocate]

Obviously there is tipping point where you should allowed into the debates. We don't want the Marxist-Leninist party in the debates. However, there have been various criteria thrown around - % support in the last election, having an MP, etc.... all of which the Green Party have met. But with each election, that bar moves. The latest criteria that has been thrown out is "agreement from the other parties" (3 parties said no, 1 said yes). That criteria makes no sense whatsoever... if there is a new, growing party that is pulling votes away from, say, the NDP why the heck would the NDP agree to have them in the debate? That's the stupidest criteria to date.

I think the networks have to put a firm list of criteria out and stop moving that bar. Something like "8% of the popular vote in last election & one ELECTED MP". That way it is clear to everyone where the bar is and it is the same for every party. I can see why the Greens are upset since they are given a different excuse every election.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Obviously there is tipping point where you should allowed into the debates. We don't want the Marxist-Leninist party in the debates. However, there have been various criteria thrown around - % support in the last election, having an MP, etc.... all of which the Green Party have met. But with each election, that bar moves. The latest criteria that has been thrown out is "agreement from the other parties" (3 parties said no, 1 said yes). That criteria makes no sense whatsoever... if there is a new, growing party that is pulling votes away from, say, the NDP why the heck would the NDP agree to have them in the debate? That's the stupidest criteria to date.

I think the networks have to put a firm list of criteria out and stop moving that bar. Something like "8% of the popular vote in last election & one ELECTED MP". That way it is clear to everyone where the bar is and it is the same for every party. I can see why the Greens are upset since they are given a different excuse every election.

Reform was only allowed in after Deb Grey was ELECTED as Reform's first MP. Moving an Independent across the House without a by-election isn't the same. Keep the Greens out.

[Resolute 14]

Agreed. For an independent to nominally join a party about a week before an election was called isn't good enough. The Greens have to actually have enough support to win a seat before they belong with the big boys.