Conservatives To Slash Federal Funding of Political Parties [Update-CPC backs down]

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Me too--but more importantly, it opens a back door for Harper to get out of this with his power (if not his dignity) intact--and he can do it by approaching the "Ignatieff wing" of the Liberal party. There will be concessions, but my guess is they're more palatable than moving into another official residence.

Hopefully that's how it unfolds and this all turns out be be nothing but a Tempest In A Pee Pot (intended wording) and we can all feel silly for getting so worked up about it.

If that's how it does play out, Layton is going to come out of this wearing the contents of that pee pot and not smelling very good. Kind of like the married person who gets caught in bed with the neighbour's spouse.

Edit ... Ignatieff earns some respect from me for this as well. Being a suspicious and cynical person, I can't help but wonder if the Liberals are playing along with this whole coalition plan just to expose Layton and degrade his stock, thereby winning back Liberal voters who may have defected to the NDP in the last couple elections, effectively putting an end to the voter split that's been happening on the left. I think they would have more to gain this way than by entering in to a coalition where the Bloc and the NDP wield so much power, to say nothing of the odiousness of collaborating with separatists.

[corporatejay]

The thought of the NDP and the BLOC having anything more than a fringe voice in Parliament scares me to no end. I can't imagine the Liberals getting onside with this. They know they're the "ruling party of Canada" and it's just a matter of getting back on track before their in power again. Why align yourself with these extremists and possibly cripple the party for the future.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Just because it doesn't affect the number of seats doesn't make it completely meaningless.

Popular vote doesn't "mean anything" in the U.S. either, but it is often used to gauge the strength of a mandate. Not that hard to understand. More people didn't vote for Harper than voted for him. These things matter, whether you like it or not.

So freaking what IFF.

Once again...and using that complete and utter fallacy of an argument, even more people DIDNT VOTE for Duceppe, Dion and Layton.

yet...you are suggesting that one of them have even more of a mandate to govern

you are both smarter and non-bias than that kind of argument...i thought.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Me too--but more importantly, it opens a back door for Harper to get out of this with his power (if not his dignity) intact--and he can do it by approaching the "Ignatieff wing" of the Liberal party. There will be concessions, but my guess is they're more palatable than moving into another official residence.

As I am more of a classical liberal than a conservative, by definition anyway, I can live with the government working with the Ignatieff wing of the Liberal Party. No question. More fiscal conservatives and small-l liberal minded folk.

All we need is a good safe budget and to get rid of sec. 13 of the Human Rights Commissions.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

My respect just went up a notch for Ignatieff.

Good, I've always figured that if Ignatief got that party it would be the first time I'd ever vote Liberal. He's just plain smarter than most, and is above alot of crap that long time politicians deem acceptable behavior.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You need to stop looking at this like the problem is all Harper's. Did you ever think that maybe Layton and Dion actually ARE the morons they both appear to be? Ever think that the reason Harper won't listen to them is because they haven't had one single brilliant idea in the last 4 years?

This may be a shock, but quite a few people don't WANT Harper to listen and work with Dion or Layton. They are both clowns.

Here's a shock for you. A lot of people think Harper is every bit the clown you think the others are. I think he's a poor leader, reactionary, doesn't work in a partisan mannor and is very American in his approach to campaigning, fear mongering (after being a victim of that himself which also makes him a hypocrit) etc.
You know just so you don't think your guy is special or anything.

[transplant99]

is very American in his approach to campaigning, fear mongering (after being a victim of that himself which also makes him a hypocrit) etc.

Based on WHAT? Holy hannah....hook, line and sinker!

[flamey_mcflame]

Well, Harper, you megalomaniac, this is what happens when you play dictator.
1) Watching the Conservatives backtrack on
a) campaign financing
b) right to strike and;
c) the date of the budget announcement

is absolutely hilarious.

2) See what happens when you defeat your own government, even when all your bills were being passed. Now you're upset that the other parties are playing dirty politics. The irony is rich. Sweaters, you brought down two governing bodies, and now you just have might have brought down the third because of your lack of governing skills.

3) As much as I love watching that American wannabe squirm, I do not want the Liberals teaming up with a party that wants to destroy the country. And I'm not talking about the Bloc Quebecois. I'll be content to watch Joe P.M. eat crow for a few more days.

Dance Flaherty, dance Baird and dance Harper. Dance for your power.

[Nehkara]

A quick thought here from someone who supports the NDP and Liberals.

Here is how I see things going down:

- NDP, Liberals, and Bloc defeat the government in about a week
- The NDP, Liberals, and Bloc form a coalition government
- The coalition is a very difficult balancing act between three widely disparate parties and has difficulty maintaining the fragile balance.
- In early-mid 2009 the coalition is defeated due to the Bloc stepping out on a policy issue.
- There is a new election and EITHER Conservatives win a majority because Canadians are sick of political games and the voters decide to give the Conservatives a shot .
-OR-
The voters lose confidence in the ability of the Conservatives to win a majority (or maintain a functional minority) and instead the Conservatives take a nose dive and the Liberals win a large minority/small majority in the following election.


I still do not understand how the Conservative party was so... stupid (it's the only word that fits) as to believe that the opposition parties would do anything less than look at their "economic update" and laugh all the way to the coalition talks.

[tkflames]

Does anyone else get the sense here that this is all a huge tv op for the future Liberal party leader. It seems to me that all future leader candidates suddenly think this is their mandate to speak up and show how they would run the party differently. That's great and all, but does nobody think that it is ridiculous that the second the country faces any kind of challenges, the entire goverment (including opposition) falls to pieces, overreacts and all at the expense of the canadian tax payer. On one hand I want to punish every single one of these idiots for being exactly that, on the other hand, what can you really do, its the same BS parties and same leaders every single time. I understand now the frustration of the american 2 party system.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Well, Harper, you megalomaniac, this is what happens when you play dictator.
1) Watching the Conservatives backtrack on
a) campaign financing
b) right to strike and;
c) the date of the budget announcement

is absolutely hilarious.

2) See what happens when you defeat your own government, even when all your bills were being passed. Now you're upset that the other parties are playing dirty politics. The irony is rich. Sweaters, you brought down two governing bodies, and now you just have might have brought down the third because of your lack of governing skills.

3) As much as I love watching that American wannabe squirm, I do not want the Liberals teaming up with a party that wants to destroy the country. And I'm not talking about the Bloc Quebecois. I'll be content to watch Joe P.M. eat crow for a few more days.

Dance Flaherty, dance Baird and dance Harper. Dance for your power.

GREAT post until the bash on the NDP. Oh well, the NDP rarely gets much love around here but I have to say... the NDP in no way, shape, or form would destroy Canada under any circumstances. It is disappointing to hear that suggestion.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

GREAT post until the bash on the NDP. Oh well, the NDP rarely gets much love around here but I have to say... the NDP in no way, shape, or form would destroy Canada under any circumstances. It is disappointing to hear that suggestion.

Really? I think they would quicker than you can say "carbon tax".

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So freaking what IFF.

Once again...and using that complete and utter fallacy of an argument, even more people DIDNT VOTE for Duceppe, Dion and Layton.

yet...you are suggesting that one of them have even more of a mandate to govern

you are both smarter and non-bias than that kind of argument...i thought.

Uh, show me where I suggested anything of the sort? Don't put words in my mouth. As a matter of fact, earlier in the thread I commented that Harper was the only one with any mandate at all, in the strictest sense of the term. That's the only card he has remaining, and he needs to use it carefully--and recognize that the mandate he has is weak. That's not (I don't think) so hard to understand.

The reality is this: Harper has gravely underestimated the political strength of his opposition, and now they're flexing their muscles--as a reminder that he needs to work with, not in spite of them. Harper's mandate is weak. It's stronger than any mandate from any of the other parties--and arguably the Liberals were rejected even more soundly than the Tories (in fact, that's my belief. But to act as though the mandate he has from essentially the same voters who elected him in 2006 constitutes some impregnable imaginary moral force that cannot be breached is just silly. He has what he has--a minority government that was strengthened as a result of vote-splitting, but which remains politically weakened by having failed to achieve a majority when that was pretty clearly their objective, against a very weak opposition.

However, it does appear that cooler heads will prevail after all. I don't see how this doesn't shake out as a major defeat for Harper, who tried to flex his muscles and got slapped down--but the fact remains that he does have the reins of power for the moment. In the end, all it means is that he has to bring the opposition (or part of it) in from the cold, and if he does that everything will work out just fine. If not--well I prefer not to think of it, but let's just say you reap what you sow. He needs to recognize that he has a minority government, and govern from a position of conciliation and compromise.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

I wouldn't pretend to know "what voters really want"; 38% voted Conservative, so that seems pretty clear. What do you mean by the average Canadian voter is a "liberal"? (just want clarification as to what you mean by that term).

Median is more accurate as "average" is hard to quantify (which is why I qualified that assertion). Average is also irrelevant - how far left or right you are doesn't affect the strength or importance of your vote. Actually, let's disregard "average" completely (error on my part to include it) and just go with median. Meaning if you look for the middle as being representative of the population, the voter from last election who has 50% of voters on his left and 50% of voters on his right (politically) voted Liberal. The Conservatives have the largest chunk, but they don't have the middle. (This holds true even if you remove the Bloq.)

I don't know "what voters really want" either (if I did, I'd be running for PM), but I do know that our system doesn't translate it very well into the House of Commons, particularly when we're talking about minority governments.

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

So then why don't they unite the left?

Don't ask me. For instance I think the Greens really hurt their environmental agenda by not dropping out completely and throwing their support behind Dion. Personally though, I see enough difference between the parties that I would not support a merger (just I only supported the coalition up to the point where the conservatives backed off on campaign finance). The Bloq want to split up the country, the NDP would cripple the economy, and whilst the greens were fairly well-aligned with Dion, I'm not sure that the majority of Liberals ever supported the Green Shift, and certainly most would now realise that it was a bad idea to campaign on. Uniting the left is not the solution I'd like to see. (Like I said though, I do think automatic run-offs are a good idea.) Probably the biggest reason as to why it won't happen though is because the far left is to idealist to look for practical ways to further their goals.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Really? I think they would quicker than you can say "carbon tax".

Whilst I don't disagree "moratorium on new oil sands projects" would be a better choice. But I guess that takes longer to say.

Layton campaigned against Dion's Green Shift because it would hurt "working familes". At the same time though, he wanted to implement a moratorium on new oil sands projects. I suspect he doesn't realise that much of Alberta's economy actually depends on the GROWTH of the oilsands projects, and not just their operation. Nothing like shutting down one of the most profitable industries in the country and bailing out the ones that can't sustain themselves whilst the economy is in a downturn to send the country's finances into a death spiral. I guess "working families" only matter if they're working in Ontario. Or maybe I'd get awesome EI benefits and sponge off the higher taxes the rest of you would eventually have to pay after Layton kills my job? (Actually, they'd more likely be taxes on those evil, greedy coorporations that would crash the economy further!)

Ah well, looks like Iggy's () going to get the LPC and Canada out of this mess. Good work! I already knew I wasn't going to support Bob Rae... still want to find out more about LeBlanc though.

[FanIn80]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only sane person around who thinks the Liberals and NDP should be worrying about fixing their own parties before they start trying to govern this country.

[EddyBeers]

Well my respect for Ignatieff just went up a bit, further to that National Post article that was posted earlier, the update from Ivison is:

"Michael Ignatieff will become Prime Minister in a Liberal-led coalition government if the opposition parties succeed in bringing down the Conservatives in a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons next week and if the Governor-General deems it to be a viable alternative, sources said late last night.

Mr. Ignatieff met with lame duck Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, and leadership candidates Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc in Toronto last night and hammered out a deal that would see Mr. Dion and Mr. Rae step aside, with the latter named to a senior post, likely Foreign Affairs Minister."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...sn-t-game.aspx

Good for Michael, Stephane and Bob to hammer this deal out.

Further to the complaining on this site about how democratic, an article from the Toronto Start today http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135 which has the following quote:

"But opposition MPs are accusing the Prime Minister of hypocrisy, charging that Harper is overlooking his own efforts to forge a coalition to replace Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government in 2004.

Harper, then Conservative leader, even joined with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe to write then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to look at "options" if Martin's government fell in the fall of 2004, mere months after it won a minority mandate on June 28.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

Steve was right then when he tried to bring down the government a little over two months after the government was elected with a "clear" mandate and the opposition parties are right now.

[metallicat]

So whatever happened to Ignatieff not being on side with this? Now that has all changed, and he is willing to lead the coalition?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

So whatever happened to Ignatieff not being on side with this? Now that has all changed, and he is willing to lead the coalition?

I guess getting to be PM without having to win either a leadership race or a general election was enough to make him comfortable with drinking from a "poison chalice".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I guess getting to be PM without having to win either a leadership race or a general election was enough to make him comfortable with drinking from a "poison chalice".

Terrific Canada is going to be lead by a Harvard academic and a Socialist Monster with no economic sense whatsover and a man who would like nothing better then to see Canada torn apart and destroyed.

All while the world is going into the recession.

Awesome, see you boys in the soup lines.

[FanIn80]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I will NOT recognize any of these clowns as my Prime Minister. That's a promise.