Liberals pass bill

[MarchHare]

Dont live in either of those countries, so i dont follow them a whole lot.

Whats your point? That because other countries have a similar system...that means its OK?

Lost me with this one.

You seem to think that Canada's system of democracy is horribly broken. We use the exact same system as the UK and many other Commonwealth nations. If our system is broken, then theirs must be too, by your logic.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 07:18 AM

Do you have the same criticisms about the government of the UK? Or Australia? Or any of the other nations that use a Westminister parliamentary system?

Australia is a great example to use. They are more 'socially' inclined than Canada even, have just as diverse a country with almost all the same challenges, yet have managed to avoid the paralysis Canada suffers from.

Perhaps mandatory voting and an elected senate play a role. Or perhaps Australians simply peek their out out from the sand occasionally.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois+Jun 24 2005, 08:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bend it like Bourgeois @ Jun 24 2005, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 07:18 AM

Do you have the same criticisms about the government of the UK? Or Australia? Or any of the other nations that use a Westminister parliamentary system?

Australia is a great example to use. They are more 'socially' inclined than Canada even, have just as diverse a country with almost all the same challenges, yet have managed to avoid the paralysis Canada suffers from.

Perhaps mandatory voting and an elected senate play a role. Or perhaps Australians simply peek their out out from the sand occasionally. [/b][/quote]
The problem with politics in Canada isn't apathy, despite what the conservative media in the West would have you believe about the "uninformed Eastern voters". Voter turnout is still relatively high.

The problems began in 1993 when two regional protest parties rose to prominence. For three consecutive elections the Liberals were the only party that stood a reasonable chance of forming a national government. At least Quebec is somewhat of a swing-province with both the Libs and the BQ capable of winning seats, so Ottawa has no choice but to pay them some attention. Albertans, on the other hand, vote instinctively for Reform/Alliance/CPC every election, and then complain why they have no voice in Parliament.

Merging the PC and Alliance parties was a step in the right direction for the right in Canada, but if you guys really want to shed your image as nothing more than a Western protest party (and that's how the CPC is seen elsewhere in Canada), electing a leader who wasn't part of the old-guard Reform/Alliance caucus would go a long way in convincing Canadians East of Manitoba that the CPC is worth their vote.

Or you can just keep huffing and complaining and fuming at the Fiberals and the morons in Ontario. Whichever you prefer.

[transplant99]

No, I'm saying why should the East support a party whose stated objective was to be a Western protest party? For the same reason that you don't support the Liberals ("they only look out for the interests of the East!"), people in Ontario and Atlantic Canada didn't support the Reform Party.

Seems to me that the Reformers had candidates all over the country. Hmmm..maybe they were all supplanted Westerners who were parachuted into the rest of the country in some midnight covert operation. Your goona have to show ne where in the party's charter the main objective was to be a "Western protest" party. They wanted change...for all of Canada.

Another Fiberal spin.

I guess the "logic" is, if they were formed West of the Ontario border...they want nothing but to bring the East down man!!

the Maritimes have even less of a voice in Ottawa than the West does, but they're at least smart enough not to form (and vote for en masse) a regional protest party that will never do anything more than be the opposition and huff and complain about their region being ignored

You mean like the BQ??

Im starting to really coddle up to the idea of a similar party for the West actually. The BQ have been able to get things done for their region BY SUPPORTING a regional protest party.

You seem to think that Canada's system of democracy is horribly broken. We use the exact same system as the UK and many other Commonwealth nations. If our system is broken, then theirs must be too, by your logic.

OK..sure. Fine. They suck as well. Again, whats your point?

[MarchHare]

OK..sure. Fine. They suck as well. Again, whats your point?

You just made it. If Canada's government sucks, as does the UK's and other Commonwealth countries, what system of democracy would you have us adopt? The US's? Switzerlands?

[Lurch]

Are you taking about the US? If so, you couldnt be more wrong. Anything that goes towards becoming law has to be approved by the Senate. Its called checks and balances, where one person/party CANT ram something through. Whata novel concept huh?

No, I was talking about a majority in Canada where the PM has absolute power. By my measure, a minority government is chock full of checks and balances, but you apparently don't like the deals necessary to make this work - unless its in the US I suppose where deals happen between Cabinet/Senate and Congress. I guess it's the deals between Liberals and NDP that's offensive, not the deals themselves??

Also, I've mentioned this before, but if Alberta is really so crazy about an elected Senate why isn't there one provincially? Just my opinion, but our constant whining might carry a little more weight if we actually backed up the rhetoric. Kind of similar to how we do nothing but whine about blind voting patterns in Ontario but consistently Alberta is the most predictable province in the entire country.

[transplant99]

No, I was talking about a majority in Canada where the PM has absolute power. By my measure, a minority government is chock full of checks and balances, but you apparently don't like the deals necessary to make this work - unless its in the US I suppose where deals happen between Cabinet/Senate and Congress. I guess it's the deals between Liberals and NDP that's offensive, not the deals themselves??

Again this is easily countered with an effective Senate...one that has to answer to somebody. (IE; constituents)

Also, I've mentioned this before, but if Alberta is really so crazy about an elected Senate why isn't there one provincially?

From what i understand...they (Alberta) aren't allowed to make the Senate elected.

But I agree, it would be a great first step.

Kind of similar to how we do nothing but whine about blind voting patterns in Ontario but consistently Alberta is the most predictable province in the entire country.

You're right. Alberta should just vote Liberal and be done with it. That way no minority governments (something you say you adore) could be formed, and the PM PM could ram through absolutely anything he wanted to.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jun 24 2005, 07:42 AM

Seems to me that the Reformers had candidates all over the country. Hmmm..maybe they were all supplanted Westerners who were parachuted into the rest of the country in some midnight covert operation. Your goona have to show ne where in the party's charter the main objective was to be a "Western protest" party. They wanted change...for all of Canada.

Another Fiberal spin.

I guess the "logic" is, if they were formed West of the Ontario border...they want nothing but to bring the East down man!!

Well, to be fair, the Reform movement did spawn as a western protest to the Mulrooney "C"onservatives. It tried to broaden into a national party, but was never accepted in the east, thus the rebranding to the Canadian Alliance, which failed just as easily. And finally, remerging with the PC's.

[transplant99]

Well, to be fair, the Reform movement did spawn as a western protest to the Mulrooney "C"onservatives. It tried to broaden into a national party, but was never accepted in the east, thus the rebranding to the Canadian Alliance, which failed just as easily. And finally, remerging with the PC's

.

Im fully aware of the roots of the party...believe me.

It doesnt change the fact that it was a FEDERAL party though....but because it was born in Calgary and raised on the praries, it was seen as nothing short of the Western version of the PQ/BQ by those in Ontario and East.

That simply isnt/wasnt and never will be the truth. Revisionist history cant change that.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 08:09 AM

Actually, I was pointing out the absolute hypocricy of Harper when he accuses the Liberals of making deals with separatists. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.

Oh I get it.

Martin and Stronach and the Liberals are allowed to complain about anybody else, but nobody is allowed to complain about what the Liberals do. Gotcha.

The Liberals made a deal with the Bloc. They extended parliament so they could get the same-sex bill passed. Fine. No problem... except that you have to admit there was a deal there. To bash Harper because he's doing the exact same thing that Martin and the Libs did before? Just another revelation of your already known bias. That's all.

[Lurch]

[/QUOTE]QUOTE

Also, I've mentioned this before, but if Alberta is really so crazy about an elected Senate why isn't there one provincially?



From what i understand...they (Alberta) aren't allowed to make the Senate elected.

But I agree, it would be a great first step.[QUOTE]

I'm not sure you got my point. I mean why doesn't Alberta establish a provincial Senate to balance the power of the Premier? As far as I understand it, provinces are more or less free to do these types of things - Quebec had a Senate until 1967 which it then abolished via a decision by the province. I don't have the background to know 100%, but it seems like Alberta could create an Upper House, establish election criteria and operate as a two house gov't. But it's clear to me Klein is not even remotely pursuing this - instead, he gives lip service to the concept and the federal level and creates an 'elected' Senator that nobody bothered to vote for at the expense of several million$.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jun 24 2005, 02:42 PM

Seems to me that the Reformers had candidates all over the country. Hmmm..maybe they were all supplanted Westerners who were parachuted into the rest of the country in some midnight covert operation. Your goona have to show ne where in the party's charter the main objective was to be a "Western protest" party. They wanted change...for all of Canada.

Another Fiberal spin.

Uhhh no. That's just how they were/are perceived. Doesn't matter if they ran candidates across the country, people saw the Reform's agenda as being western based. That's just how it was/is. No spinning at all.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 07:35 AM

Merging the PC and Alliance parties was a step in the right direction for the right in Canada, but if you guys really want to shed your image as nothing more than a Western protest party (and that's how the CPC is seen elsewhere in Canada), electing a leader who wasn't part of the old-guard Reform/Alliance caucus would go a long way in convincing Canadians East of Manitoba that the CPC is worth their vote.

Or you can just keep huffing and complaining and fuming at the Fiberals and the morons in Ontario. Whichever you prefer.

Why is it that people always want to suggest that right wingers should change the party to move towards the center. That is not the type of party that I and many that supported reform and the new CPC want. I don't support a more central leanign PC party with some dope like Stronach at the center. IF it means that we don't get elected then fine. At least I didn't support a party that I don't agree with and now are in power making laws/descions that I don't want. I would rather fight for the issues that I believe in and be the official opposition, than support people who are going to put half-assed laws in place.

[moon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Jun 24 2005, 08:31 AM

QUOTE

Also, I've mentioned this before, but if Alberta is really so crazy about an elected Senate why isn't there one provincially?



From what i understand...they (Alberta) aren't allowed to make the Senate elected.

But I agree, it would be a great first step.

I'm not sure you got my point. I mean why doesn't Alberta establish a provincial Senate to balance the power of the Premier? As far as I understand it, provinces are more or less free to do these types of things - Quebec had a Senate until 1967 which it then abolished via a decision by the province. I don't have the background to know 100%, but it seems like Alberta could create an Upper House, establish election criteria and operate as a two house gov't. But it's clear to me Klein is not even remotely pursuing this - instead, he gives lip service to the concept and the federal level and creates an 'elected' Senator that nobody bothered to vote for at the expense of several million$.

I don't know how this would control the Premier as an Alberta Elected Senate would be very heavily dominated by Conservatives.

If Canada is going to have a Senate that is supposed to represent all of Canada, Alberta just wants people that actually represent Albertans and their ideas rather than those that support the government.

[MarchHare]

The Liberals made a deal with the Bloc. They extended parliament so they could get the same-sex bill passed. Fine. No problem... except that you have to admit there was a deal there. To bash Harper because he's doing the exact same thing that Martin and the Libs did before? Just another revelation of your already known bias. That's all.

Did I ever claim not to be biased?

If so, let me get this out of the way right now: I'm a registered member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a past-president of the Mount Allison University chapter of the Young Liberals.

I never once claimed to be some impartial bias-free individual.

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. It's understandable; politics makes strange bedfellows, afterall. So if either the Liberals or the Conservative use the Bloc to advance their own ends, so be it. But Harper has no right to claim a position of moral superiority over Martin by accusing the Liberals of working with the separatists.

That's all.

[MarchHare]

Why is it that people always want to suggest that right wingers should change the party to move towards the center. That is not the type of party that I and many that supported reform and the new CPC want. I don't support a more central leanign PC party with some dope like Stronach at the center. IF it means that we don't get elected then fine. At least I didn't support a party that I don't agree with and now are in power making laws/descions that I don't want. I would rather fight for the issues that I believe in and be the official opposition, than support people who are going to put half-assed laws in place.

Fair enough, and I respect the fact that you'd rather stick to your views than sell out for the chance of gaining power. It's too bad for you that your party doesn't feel the same way.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

let me tell you as an outsider to Calgary, and living in the "Evil East" (hahaha) there are times that it pains me to read political threads:

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)

[transplant99]

Uhhh no. That's just how they were/are perceived. Doesn't matter if they ran candidates across the country, people saw the Reform's agenda as being western based. That's just how it was/is. No spinning at all.

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.

[Lurch]

I don't know how this would control the Premier as an Alberta Elected Senate would be very heavily dominated by Conservatives.

If Canada is going to have a Senate that is supposed to represent all of Canada, Alberta just wants people that actually represent Albertans and their ideas rather than those that support the government.

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.

[MarchHare]

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

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

Come on now, let's call a spade a spade. Reform began as a Western protest party, (even though they ran candidates across the country) just as the Bloc is a Quebec protest 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.

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