Did the Government fall today?

[MarchHare]

Yes, but the Conservatives have the best interest of Canadians in mind. They have to defeat those dirty criminal Liberals. It's completely ethical what they're doing, you know, allying themselves with the separatists, because it serves a greater good.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 12 2005, 01:40 PM
Yes, but the Conservatives have the best interest of Canadians in mind. They have to defeat those dirty criminal Liberals. It's completely ethical what they're doing, you know, allying themselves with the separatists, because it serves a greater good.

Yes, but the Liberals have the best interest of Canadians in mind. They have to defeat those evil, scary Conservatives. It's completely ethical what they're doing, you know, allying themselves with the NDP, because it serves a greater good.

Paul Martin find this 20+ billion dollars in extra cash that is suddenly being spent under his mattress or something? Wonder what that's all about. Could it be that it is to appease the NDP in order to stay in power, and also bribe the Canadian voter's before a possible election? At least this time the bribery is legal. Since when did Layton, with his 19% nation-wide support, become the PM anyways?

As was stated in an editorial in the globe today, "thankfully this government is probably in it's final moments. If it lasted any longer, the country would go broke..."

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@May 12 2005, 04:48 PM
Could it be that it is to appease the NDP in order to stay in power, and also bribe the Canadian voter's before a possible election? At least this time the bribery is legal.

Making a budget and allocating money to certain areas is considered a bribe?

Since when did Layton, with his 19% nation-wide support, become the PM anyways?

Layton is looking out for the interests of his party and their supporters. It's his job to have as much political pull in Ottawa as he can. If he can use the Libs for his parties interests, he's a good politician. Any politician would do the same and you can't blame them for it. That's why people voted them into the house. So they could represent those people and do as much for them as possible.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+May 12 2005, 11:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ May 12 2005, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@May 12 2005, 04:48 PM
Could it be that it is to appease the NDP in order to stay in power, and also bribe the Canadian voter's before a possible election? At least this time the bribery is legal.

Making a budget and allocating money to certain areas is considered a bribe?
[/b][/quote]
When it is done on the basis of only giving to those provinces that are or could be Liberal supporters I think it is.

Why all of a sudden is Ontario entitled to a reduction in transfer payments? Because they are suddenly hard done by and can't afford it? Or is it because the Liberal government knows that they are likely going to be defeated on the budget, and want to be able to say durring an election campaing that the Conservatives are the reason Ontario isn't going to get $5+ Billion back from the feds?

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 12 2005, 05:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 12 2005, 05:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dynamic@May 12 2005, 03:57 AM
Nothing is gonna change with the Conservatives in power. You have that Harper guy( just looking at him makes me want to walk up to him and give him a swift kick to the head) accusing Martin of waiting til a few days to vote just beacuse a few conservative member are sick. When I first heard that I laughed, then realized harper was serious when he said it. That makes me cringe.

Kinda like whenever I see Martin's smug face I want to give him a good swift kick in the butt. The fact that he's hoping that two conservatives and one independant who are undergoing treatment for cancer won't be there because thier undergoing chemo is disgusting, way to uphold the democratic process you piece of garbage (Martin, not anyone on this board)
. [/b][/quote]
Well, it should be noted, that the NDP have offered to have 2 of their members ABSTAIN from the confidence vote if the 2 sick Conservatives are not able to make it. (as heard on the QR77 radio news this morning).

There goes the corruption angle/confidence vote done on purpose when conservatives won't be there so that the Liberals will win angle, no...

[MarchHare]

And while we're on the topic of cancer-sufferers, the Conservatives refused to wait until the Liberal MP from Labrador could be in Parliament before voting on the Speech from the Throne (also a confidence motion) last year. That MP is now dead, and a by-election in that traditional Liberal-safe riding isn't scheduled until the end of the month.

For the CPC to suggest that the Liberals are taking advantage of cancer patients is pure hypocrisy.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@May 13 2005, 07:35 AM


Why all of a sudden is Ontario entitled to a reduction in transfer payments? Because they are suddenly hard done by and can't afford it? Or is it because the Liberal government knows that they are likely going to be defeated on the budget, and want to be able to say durring an election campaing that the Conservatives are the reason Ontario isn't going to get $5+ Billion back from the feds?

Well, you are right about that, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Any province or state that never shifts allegience always gets the short end of the stick when compared to swing provinces or states. In Canada, every region of the country except Alberta has the possibility to change allegience (not necessarily right now, but over the course of, say, 10 years). I have no idea how Ontario, or Quebec, or BC, or the Maritimes or the other prairie provinces would vote in a 2015 election. But I know that whatever happens, the only way Alberta does not vote for the conservatives is if Alberta starts up another right-wing grass roots party. Even the federal Conservative government has sold out Alberta in the past, because it knows that Alberta will always vote conservative, regardless. I agree that this current gesture is tremendously unfair. It stinks of Clark selling out our oil resources in 1979 as a way of appeasing Ontario voters and holding together a weak minority government. We are completely fataed, unless at some point we demonstrate that we are not simply an unshiftable mass of Conservative loyalists. Problem is that right now, there are not a lot of valid options to the Conservatives.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by octothorp+May 13 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ May 13 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@May 13 2005, 07:35 AM


Why all of a sudden is Ontario entitled to a reduction in transfer payments? Because they are suddenly hard done by and can't afford it? Or is it because the Liberal government knows that they are likely going to be defeated on the budget, and want to be able to say durring an election campaing that the Conservatives are the reason Ontario isn't going to get $5+ Billion back from the feds?

Well, you are right about that, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Any province or state that never shifts allegience always gets the short end of the stick when compared to swing provinces or states. In Canada, every region of the country except Alberta has the possibility to change allegience (not necessarily right now, but over the course of, say, 10 years). I have no idea how Ontario, or Quebec, or BC, or the Maritimes or the other prairie provinces would vote in a 2015 election. But I know that whatever happens, the only way Alberta does not vote for the conservatives is if Alberta starts up another right-wing grass roots party. Even the federal Conservative government has sold out Alberta in the past, because it knows that Alberta will always vote conservative, regardless. I agree that this current gesture is tremendously unfair. It stinks of Clark selling out our oil resources in 1979 as a way of appeasing Ontario voters and holding together a weak minority government. We are completely fataed, unless at some point we demonstrate that we are not simply an unshiftable mass of Conservative loyalists. Problem is that right now, there are not a lot of valid options to the Conservatives. [/b][/quote]
So now we're switching effective and fair government for votes, please excuse my cynicism when i say . . . what the?

If thats the way this government is going to work then we really need to reform the system, because if what your saying is true and the government is only willing to work for who votes for them as oppossed to the country as a whole then confederation is already dead.

But I guess I shouldn't expect anymore from a eastern centric government that takes great pains in punishing the people that don't vote for them.

[CaptainCrunch]

and maybe the Liberal's should be working to sell the west as oppossed to alienating a geographic region.

Because all of thier promises of the last election of closing the gap to the west, have turned out to be bull

[octothorp]

Call me cynical but I do not really believe that Canadian politics has ever been about anything more than doing whatever it takes to obtain and retain power, at least for the big two parties. There have been leaders and politicians with tremendous and innovative visions for this country, but they have always had to compromise when the realities of politics appear. I would welcome an overhaul to the political system that would move away from regional representation towards proportional representation--it would be a good first step. Of course, the regions of the country favoured by the current system would be able to thwart any attempt to overhaul the system (Quebec, in particular).

You are right about the Liberals breaking promises to the west. Of course, those promises were made only to win votes and seats, and that attempt was completely unsuccessful--you will never see a party keep promises when the people it made the promises to snubbed the party. Whenever a party says that they promise they will do X for you, what they really mean is that if you vote for them, they will do X for you. If you vote for the other guy, forget it.
I do not know exactly what the political climate is in Ontario right now, but I cannot help feeling that there is a bit of an anti-western sentiment, which the liberals take advantage of by antagonizing us, in the same way that they take advantage of anti-american sentiment by antagonizing the US; an antagonistic relationship with Quebec was a key part of the Reform strategy (not officially, but at a grass roots level) before they developed aspirations of forming a government.

Either that, or I am just in a particularly p*ssy mood today.

edit: just for clarity, the letter replaced in that last sentence was an i, not a u.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by octothorp@May 13 2005, 09:57 AM
Well, you are right about that, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Any province or state that never shifts allegience always gets the short end of the stick when compared to swing provinces or states. In Canada, every region of the country except Alberta has the possibility to change allegience (not necessarily right now, but over the course of, say, 10 years). I have no idea how Ontario, or Quebec, or BC, or the Maritimes or the other prairie provinces would vote in a 2015 election. But I know that whatever happens, the only way Alberta does not vote for the conservatives is if Alberta starts up another right-wing grass roots party. Even the federal Conservative government has sold out Alberta in the past, because it knows that Alberta will always vote conservative, regardless. I agree that this current gesture is tremendously unfair. It stinks of Clark selling out our oil resources in 1979 as a way of appeasing Ontario voters and holding together a weak minority government. We are completely fataed, unless at some point we demonstrate that we are not simply an unshiftable mass of Conservative loyalists. Problem is that right now, there are not a lot of valid options to the Conservatives.

Your first post is exactly why Canada is worthless to Alberta.

The so-called federal government will never give us anything until we hand them even more power. Just another reason why Confederation needs a complete makeover.

[Looger]

know what i don't get?

why any of this is an issue.

canada has an amazingly decentralized nation.

alberta exports a lot of oil, some of east, some of it west, and a lot of it south.

if all goes to china's plan a million barrels a day will be heading their way.

the only guaranteed market is the united states, if alberta separates.

canada has a great rapport with china, one that is NOT enjoyed by the united states in any way, shape, or form. of course we don't buzz them with surveillance/spy planes, sell weapons to their enemies, etc.

and don't for a second think we wouldn't be a 51st state within five years were we to split from confederation.

a lot of alberta's prosperity comes under the flag of canada, and if that costs some transfer payments, so be it.

alone on its own alberta would be easy prey - no treaties yet, no sea ports, no powerful banking like switzerland, the caymans, luxembourg, etc. (small countries with long economic reaches).

alberta would be economically exploited, the scale and speed of which would blow our minds. how much land is left on earth? ask the israelis and palestinians, we are down to square feet people.

canada has its problems but the one thing going for it is the disorganized government.

canadian small and large businessmen succeed in spite of, not because of, our government. the feds try to screw everything up, all the time, because they get voted in on quality of services - which in the short-term means more tax revenue. until this changes, that means they are slowly strangling everything.

but still, trust me, canada is worth it.

oil rights are taxed at the provincial level, and alberta is strong enough economically now that a 'new energy program' like 25 years ago could never work again, alberta would threaten to secede and the people would be behind the move.

the governement will never risk killing the golden goose, ever again. they're WAY too greedy for that.

opening up the separation can of worms is a tremendously bad idea, i for one doubt the people trumpeting it have all the facts at hand.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 13 2005, 11:45 AM

Your first post is exactly why Canada is worthless to Alberta.

The so-called federal government will never give us anything until we hand them even more power. Just another reason why Confederation needs a complete makeover.

I think that Albertans, as a voting populace, do not play the game of politics very well; or maybe we just refuse to play it. Quebec is masterful at playing the game; they use all levels of government to manipulate the balance of power and get what they want, dominating the national agenda. Yes, the federal system is sloped in favour of Quebec--but even so, they are way more powerful federally than their seats should allow. Right now you have three major political parties all asking themselves what they can do to get support in Quebec. Nobody is asking that same question about Alberta; the Conservatives will just assume that we will vote for them (we will, of course), the Liberals will offer some bone during the election campaign, but we have no reason to trust them.

Maybe it is because we are naive, we believe in all the principles of fairness which simply are not part of the equation and never will be. Rather than trying to play the game, we try to change the game itself--hence all the parties originated in Alberta or originally supported in Alberta with fairly radical goals and ideals (Socred, Progressives, UFA, Reform). But the game cannot be changed, and you cannot play the game effectively while you are attempting to change it.

[Resolute 14]

You are most likely right, Octothorp, and that, I think, is a reason why I think one of two things will happen provincially:

Ted Morton succeeds Klein, or the Alberta Alliance will succeed the Tories. Chances are very high that provincially, the leader/party that promises most to protect Alberta from Canada will do very well.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@May 12 2005, 11:43 PM

Layton is looking out for the interests of his party and their supporters. It's his job to have as much political pull in Ottawa as he can. If he can use the Libs for his parties interests, he's a good politician. Any politician would do the same and you can't blame them for it. That's why people voted them into the house. So they could represent those people and do as much for them as possible.

Agreed, he is being a good politician and any other person in his position would do the same. However, I take issue with the fact that the party with only 19ish% nationwide support seems to be having the biggest say and influence in budgetary matters. All this simply because the Liberal's will do anything to stay in power at this point.

[browna]

Don't have the link, but Ed Broadbent stepped up today and agreed to sit out the May 19 vote, as a courtesy to the Conservative who can't get to the vote on the 19th due to his condition.

Kudos. Seems like the true leader of the NDP is still the one from the 1980's who acts on things, not tries to "charm" *gag* and confuse people with outdated cliches, poorly worded jokes and vauge arguments.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by browna@May 13 2005, 11:59 PM
Don't have the link, but Ed Broadbent stepped up today and agreed to sit out the May 19 vote, as a courtesy to the Conservative who can't get to the vote on the 19th due to his condition.

Kudos. Seems like the true leader of the NDP is still the one from the 1980's who acts on things, not tries to "charm" *gag* and confuse people with outdated cliches, poorly worded jokes and vauge arguments.

I also read that today on Canada.com via my cell phone.

Glad to see that there are some decent politicians around. It's hard to imagine anyone from the other 3 parties doing that at this point.

[MarchHare]

However, I take issue with the fact that the party with only 19ish% nationwide support seems to be having the biggest say and influence in budgetary matters. All this simply because the Liberal's will do anything to stay in power at this point.

That's how minority governments always work. One party with not very much national support ends up holding the balance of power. The NDP must know they're never going to form a national majority government, so this is their dream situation. They were in a similar position during Lester Pearson's governments in the 60s. There's a good chance Canada wouldn't have universal healthcare were it not for Pearson's Liberals needing the NDP's support.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@May 13 2005, 04:06 PM
Agreed, he is being a good politician and any other person in his position would do the same. However, I take issue with the fact that the party with only 19ish% nationwide support seems to be having the biggest say and influence in budgetary matters. All this simply because the Liberal's will do anything to stay in power at this point.

I can see your issue. If I didn't agree with many NDP priorities I would take issue too. If we changed this to a hypothetical situation where the CPC was getting their way into the budget I would be bothered myself.

I just think that's its stupid to blame that on the NDP as it would be stupid for me to blame the CPC in my hypothetical situation.

I think the issue should be with the party in power who is getting used, and not with the party who is using them.

If you don't like the NDP, you should be mad at the Libs for giving them that control. but the people who bash Layton and his party for taking it clearly have no understanding of politics.

[Resolute 14]

Well, I for one, am not bashing Layton for taking the deal. We all know that this is the only situation where he and the NDP will ever have any power in the HoC. My problem is his hypocricy in attacking the CPC for dealing with the Bloq, especially since he has sided with the Bloq in the past.