Well I wouldn't say they're protecting the interests of all Canadians by trying to topple the government. I would just say that they're acting as a competitive power seeking party traditionally acts. And having many competitive power seeking parties is the sign of a democratic system.
Whether toppling the government is in our interest is up the air as you would have to define what our interest was. If our interest is in having a system that allows elections every 18 months for the sake of democracy then sure. I guess my point is don't hate the playa, hate the game.
Great article by a Constitutional Prof at the University of Ottawa. He highlights the hypocrisy of those Conservatives that are currently complaining about an election.
The prime minister claimed last year that he was legally able to break his own fixed elections law, thereby making a mockery of his former strongly held beliefs.
Quote:
Last year, I suggested that the fundamental principles of the rule of law on which this country's constitutional order is based would be undermined if the prime minister could violate with impunity the letter and sprit of the fixed elections law which his own government had passed.
Quote:
At the time, the prime minister justified his actions by claiming that Parliament had become dysfunctional. This reason seemed to fly in the face of the fact that the Conservatives had managed to pass most of the laws on their agenda and the governing party itself was the principal actor in disrupting parliamentary committees.
Last edited by EddyBeers; 09-03-2009 at 12:05 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EddyBeers For This Useful Post:
Yup, proving my point that parties and leaders act to achieve or secure power. There's kind of a sublime reassurance to that type of behaviour as it creates predictability in the system and helps to explain alot of behaviour.
How many people around here were up in arms when Stephen Harper dropped the writ in clear violation of a law that he passed? Probably very few because in this case the political party that many agree with was going for power. However, one thing is clear, Ignatieff isn't breaking any laws.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pastiche For This Useful Post:
Yup, proving my point that parties and leaders act to achieve or secure power. There's kind of a sublime reassurance to that type of behaviour as it creates predictability in the system and helps to explain alot of behaviour.
How many people around here were up in arms when Stephen Harper dropped the writ in clear violation of a law that he passed? Probably very few because in this case the political party that many agree with was going for power. However, one thing is clear, Ignatieff isn't breaking any laws.
More to the point, when you salivate with phony outrage over politicians acting as poiliticians, it actually show that you don't care about the integrity of the system itself--only about whether your side wins.
I worry that a few people fall into that category--particularly those that are drinking the Kool-Aid on the tax credit business, when it was in fact Harper who maneuvered the Libereals into the position where they'd have to vote it down to defeat the government.
Which I'm not shocked or appalled by, incidentally--it's just politics, and smart politics at that. But to pretend that it's only the Liberals who are being "slimy" (as if the Tories were innocent little children) is the sort of dangerous naivete that leads in the end to disillusionment and disengagement from politics.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Team Ignatieff has just announcedits new slogan: "We can do better."
Quote:
That's an interesting choice of phrase, as a review of documents available via the University of California, Santa Barbara's American Presidency Project reveals."We can do better" is a slogan with more than a little history behind it in U.S. politics. Barack Obama used it a few times as a candidate (though not as often as his signature "Yes We Can"), but he was hardly the first American politician to invoke it.
Quote:
Mr. Ignatieff is hoping the slogan can transcend political borders, and work a little magic in Canada too. He's also risking questions about his eagerness to equate himself with American presidents and presidential aspirants. For a man who has been criticized for identifying himself as an American, co-opting a slogan used by four Democratic candidates could be seen as a bit tone-deaf. Especially for a party that delights in denouncing anything it deems "U.S.-style" in nature.
The problem with Candian politics and the real issues is... all parties are spending so much time attcking the other party and trying to over-throw the government, regardless which party is in control, that they never resolve any issues.
Every party talks about the issues and creates a platform but when push comes to shove, no party actually upholds what they are saying and what they are trying to accomplish because they are either trying to hold onto their power or obtain the power all awhile the issue becomes moot and everyone forgets that there is an issue. They only remember that we have to go to the polls again... to what? vote in another loser who will accomplish nothing? Go Canadian politics... so useless.
I'm not so sure we really care about the issues as much as we say we do. If we did we'd be much much more educated on them and the quality of discussion between parties would be much better.
We inherit the political system we deserve. The vast majority of citizens really care less about the issues and rely on tiny placeholders for their political information and political preferences. As such, we have parties crafting and designing messages to fill and satisfy those placeholders.
Thankfully this isn't a feature isolated to Canada. Almost every country in the world has this depth of political discussion. Why? Well most of us would rather not spend our free time researching political issues and getting educated on those matters. That's fine so long as you accept the type of system that that creates.
In this particular case, yes, it appeared to be necessary.
I'll take the rest to mean you've belatedly agreed with my point.
Cowperson
Your point? I don't even remember what that was. Except that on the basis of ONE poll (and a highly methodologically flawed one) you claim that if the market crash had not taken place, Harper would have won a majority. Your conclusion is based on a single poll where he netted less than 45% of decided voters--one that is contradicted by DOZENS of polls in the same date range which show him at around 38%--which is EXACTLY WHERE HE ENDED UP!!!! You tell me which explanation for these data makes more sense: one of these polls is right and ALL the others are wrong--or the single poll published in the National Post is an outlier. Or, alternately (and this seems to be the scenario that you prefer) that 6% of voters temporarily thought they might vote for Harper and then changed their minds when the economy tanked, preferring to put the economy in the hands of a clearly incompetent Stephane Dion?!? Forgive me for finding either scenario laughable.
But it's all rather stupid, don't you think? Look, Harper might also have won a majority of pigs flew and hell froze over. Neither of those things happened. The election wasn't held in September, and if you really think that Harper lost his hypothetical majority because he couldn't convince Canadians that he was a better steward of the economy than Stephane freaking Dion, then you have far less confidence in him than I do.
What puzzles me is why this seems so personal to you. You made the common and understandable error of looking only at the top line numbers of a single poll and drawing a conclusion from them that isn't supported by the rest of the data. People do that all the time--especially mainstream media outlets like Newspapers. I wasn't attacking YOU--I was pointing out that Harper's position was pretty weak prior to the collapse, and roughly the same afterward. I'm not making that up--why would I? It's what the numbers say.
Dion, on the other hand, plummetted in the polls in mid-September. I notice you didn't address that tiny little problem with your argument... but I suppose since for some reason you actually care this much about a hypothetical scenario in which the election was held on a different day than it actually was, I shouldn't be shocked.
And no, being rude and childish is NEVER necessary--at least that's not how I was raised. I know this is a message board, but come on. And I'm very disappointed in those sort of antics coming from you of all people. There are many posters that I expect that sort of idiocy from--but your track record indicates that most of the time you don't behave that way.
Whether it's a conservative minority government or a Liberal minority government. All it amounts too is same turd/different pile! This would break all records for voter apathy.
Whether it's a conservative minority government or a Liberal minority government. All it amounts too is same turd/different pile! This would break all records for voter apathy.
I think you're right--the math is strongly indicative of another Conservative minority, unless the top line numbers conceal massive Liberal strength in Ontario (which I don't know anything about, but sort of doubt). The other possibility is a slim Liberal minority, and it is really an open question whether Canadians (having just voted last fall) really feel like waging an election fight over such a tiny sliver of influence.
What effect will decreased voter turnout have? Weil, historically it increases the relative influence of highly motivated voter blocs, meaning that we may see BQ gains in Quebec.... but I don't know what else.
Yup, proving my point that parties and leaders act to achieve or secure power. There's kind of a sublime reassurance to that type of behaviour as it creates predictability in the system and helps to explain alot of behaviour.
How many people around here were up in arms when Stephen Harper dropped the writ in clear violation of a law that he passed? Probably very few because in this case the political party that many agree with was going for power. However, one thing is clear, Ignatieff isn't breaking any laws.
Honestly, I wasn't happy about the snap election last time, and I'm just as if not more unhappy this time around. I still can't point to any significant issues that should cause this government to fall.
I can also point out that causing a government to fall over budgetary items that you as the opposition party supported only a few months ago is ridiculous.
The Liberal's also walked away from the UI committee today claiming that the Conservatives wouldn't budge and see things their way. The Conservatives are claiming that the Liberals won't budge on the ridiculously stupid demand for UI eligibility after 360 hours worked.
I'm hoping to an extent that there's a severe backlash against the Liberal party if they trigger an election and a majority government is elected so that we can have 4 years without going to the polls.
But Canadian's being Canadian's, there's no way this isn't another minority government.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Well I wouldn't say they're protecting the interests of all Canadians by trying to topple the government. I would just say that they're acting as a competitive power seeking party traditionally acts. And having many competitive power seeking parties is the sign of a democratic system.
Whether toppling the government is in our interest is up the air as you would have to define what our interest was. If our interest is in having a system that allows elections every 18 months for the sake of democracy then sure. I guess my point is don't hate the playa, hate the game.
My comment wasn't aimed at you but rather at the many posters on this forum and others who can find any reason to justify their own hypocrisy when it comes to the party they support. When the Liberals had a minority government, the CPC engaged in many of the exact same "power hungry" behaviours, but there certainly wasn't much (if any) of a backlash against them here (and nor should there have been -- they were doing their job as opposition, just as the Liberals are now).
A bit of a side discussion, but is it wrong to not vote for Ignatief based solely on his American ties - regardless of the issues on the table?
A better question would be to ask if his history of living and working in the US is itself a valid issue.
Do you have any reason to believe he would make bad decisions for Canada specifically because of his American ties? If yes, then it's a legitmate campaign discussion. If not, then it's a non-issue.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Your point? I don't even remember what that was. .
Well, that much is obvious.
But, as a refresher, you challenged this comment of mine below by highlighting it and replying to it :
Quote:
If I remember right, he WAS on the way to a majority when he found himself campaigning in a very sudden, dramatic and decidedly unexpected global economic free fall . . . . .
You specifically and directly challenged the notion that Harper was "on his way to a majority" with a sidebar that the economy was to blame when that didn't happen (everyone has an opinion).
In turn, not only did I provide a link but pointed out your own link supported my point, then provided three other observations from both sides of the political spectrum, written at the time, plus the middle spectrum that also supported the observation that Harper in early to late September was "on his way to a majority."
I could probably generate dozens more of similar observations if necessary.
You're a bright guy so I don't know why you're trying to belabour this.
And no, I did not take this rigamarole personally and didn't think a "blah, blah, blah," well earned on your part by that point, would have you jumping up and down, holding your head in agony . . . . . you're a little sensitive. It's not like I called you a boob of some kind or any kind of name at all.
Anyway, as amusing as all this is, I'm off to see a client, then engaging in a sweaty run.
Have a pleasant afternoon. Sincerely.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
But, as a refresher, you challenged this comment of mine below by highlighting it and replying to it :
You specifically and directly challenged the notion that Harper was "on his way to a majority" with a sidebar that the economy was to blame when that didn't happen (everyone has an opinion).
In turn, not only did I provide a link but pointed out your own link supported my point, then provided three other observations from both sides of the political spectrum, written at the time, plus the middle spectrum that also supported the observation that Harper in early to late September was "on his way to a majority."
I could probably generate dozens more of similar observations if necessary.
You're a bright guy so I don't know why you're trying to belabour this.
And no, I did not take this rigamarole personally and didn't think a "blah, blah, blah," well earned on your part by that point, would have you jumping up and down, holding your head in agony . . . . . you're a little sensitive. It's not like I called you a boob of some kind or any kind of name at all.
Anyway, as amusing as all this is, I'm off to see a client, then engaging in a sweaty run.
Have a pleasant afternoon. Sincerely.
Cowperson
So, let's review. I made a claim and provided evidence. You, without explanation, claimed that my evidence supported your point. You provided evidence of your claim, but evidence that was pretty clearly flawed.
I then provided more evidence, and an explanation of the available data, which you ignored. I also offered a critique of your evidence in some detail, which you described by saying "blah blah blah," but ignored its contents entirely.
Then you bailed out of the discussion entirely, pretending that you never cared all that much about any of this in the first place.
A better question would be to ask if his history of living and working in the US is itself a valid issue.
I think that raises another question that needs to be answered first: Is there enough of a difference between living and working in the US vs Canada, that it should raise flags in the first place?
What I mean by that is, would someone who has adapted to living and working in a society of one country be the right fit for leading the society of an entirely different country?
I'm trying to imagine a Canadian attempting to run for the oval office in the US, and it's pretty hard to picture. Should we really be so cavalier about the requirements of the top job in Canada that we're willing to vote for someone from a different country?
(These are just meant to be questions, btw. While it's no secret that I've historically been a Conservative supporter, these questions of Ignatief's nationality are going to be fairly prevalent during the election. It makes sense to try to discuss them rationally, before the propaganda machines kick in.)
A better question would be to ask if his history of living and working in the US is itself a valid issue.
Do you have any reason to believe he would make bad decisions for Canada specifically because of his American ties? If yes, then it's a legitmate campaign discussion. If not, then it's a non-issue.
Well it's better than my grandfather-in-law's declaration that he'd never vote for Ignatieff because of his russian aristocracy ancestry.
If you look back at his academic history, he probably always took the most prestigious opportunity available to him. Should he be criticized for studying at Harvard or Cambridge? Should Trudeau have been criticized for taking a similar route? Should Ignatieff be criticized for accepting a prestigious position at the university where he did his masters work? I think you'd have a hard time finding very many academics in Canada who would turn up their nose at the sort of positions that Ignatieff was offered.
Now, the American qualities of his policies (and in particular his foreign policy) do bear a lot of analysis and I do hope that they become a major issue in this election campaign, because I'm not sure I am entirely clear on where he stands on some issues.
