"Stephen Harper" Ad

[SebC]

Originally Posted by guzzy

The guy is the most honest and arguably the best PM we have seen in decades. He is by far the most competent leader Canada has right now.

If you don't like it move south.

LOL, if we don't like conservatives, we should move to the USA? Brilliant!

I am generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The PCs are neither, so I'm voting liberal, whether or not they lost track of a few dollars. Who says the PCs haven't, and we just don't know about it yet?

Harper's been okay, because he didn't have a majority. Give him that, and he can start pushing the real social conservative agenda a bit more.

I will always vote liberal because to me, social policies are more important than economic ones, and the conservatives are actually more free-spending than the liberals anyways.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

LOL, if we don't like conservatives, we should move to the USA? Brilliant!

I am generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The PCs are neither, so I'm voting liberal, whether or not they lost track of a few dollars. Who says the PCs haven't, and we just don't know about it yet?

Eh?

Harper has done a pretty good job, IMO. I hate the fact that he's using the 'weak Liberal' mantra to his advantage and blowing $250mil to call an election, but he's a politician, and the Liberals, NDP, BQ would all do the same thing.

Give him a majority government and see what he can do with it. You have no idea if he's going to inject the 'social' agenda at all. He's not am American conservative.

Also, what exactly is he going to do? Reverse gay marriage? Unlikely. Ban abortion? Again unlikely. I'm really not understanding your 'fear' of Harper's social agenda here.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by SebC

LOL, if we don't like conservatives, we should move to the USA? Brilliant!

I am generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The PCs are neither, so I'm voting liberal, whether or not they lost track of a few dollars. Who says the PCs haven't, and we just don't know about it yet?

Harper's been okay, because he didn't have a majority. Give him that, and he can start pushing the real social conservative agenda a bit more.

I will always vote liberal because to me, social policies are more important than economic ones, and the conservatives are actually more free-spending than the liberals anyways.

Like not punishing criminals, allowing them out of prison early and not standing up for real criminal justice reform?

Or how about giving out giving out grants and funds so people can make paintings and sing songs instead of making actual improvements to health care and people in poverty?

What about the idea that people should be forced to put their children in childcare to obtain any benifit from the government instead of helping families out that want to stay home and raise their children?

Yup, good social policies.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Eh?

Harper has done a pretty good job, IMO. I hate the fact that he's using the 'weak Liberal' mantra to his advantage and blowing $250mil to call an election, but he's a politician, and the Liberals, NDP, BQ would all do the same thing.

Give him a majority government and see what he can do with it. You have no idea if he's going to inject the 'social' agenda at all. He's not am American conservative.

Also, what exactly is he going to do? Reverse gay marriage? Unlikely. Ban abortion? Again unlikely. I'm really not understanding your 'fear' of Harper's social agenda here.

I don't like the fact that he is calling an election. It really bothers me that he brings in legislation to provide fixed election dates but then claims that it only applies to majority governments. If he wants an election he should force the opposition to bring him down. Not go back on his word.

I can see the need for an election as far as the CPC is concerned. They want to have it done before the USA election is over. There is also a looming economic recession that could easily be used against them a year from now even though it has nothing to do with their economic policies.

Holding an election now will mean that they are pretty much guaranteed atleast another 2 years in power, enough time for the economy to recover and the political winds from the US to fade.

I just hate the fact that he is breaking his own law.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't like the fact that he is calling an election. It really bothers me that he brings in legislation to provide fixed election dates but then claims that it only applies to majority governments. If he wants an election he should force the opposition to bring him down. Not go back on his word.

I can see the need for an election as far as the CPC is concerned. They want to have it done before the USA election is over. There is also a looming economic recession that could easily be used against them a year from now even though it has nothing to do with their economic policies.

Holding an election now will mean that they are pretty much guaranteed atleast another 2 years in power, enough time for the economy to recover and the political winds from the US to fade.

I just hate the fact that he is breaking his own law.

My exact opinion, in more words.

But, its a minor issue in the whole scheme of things.

I'm willing to give him a majority government and a few years to see what he can do.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't like the fact that he is calling an election. It really bothers me that he brings in legislation to provide fixed election dates but then claims that it only applies to majority governments. If he wants an election he should force the opposition to bring him down. Not go back on his word.

I can see the need for an election as far as the CPC is concerned. They want to have it done before the USA election is over. There is also a looming economic recession that could easily be used against them a year from now even though it has nothing to do with their economic policies.

Holding an election now will mean that they are pretty much guaranteed atleast another 2 years in power, enough time for the economy to recover and the political winds from the US to fade.

I just hate the fact that he is breaking his own law.

He isn't breaking his own law. The law explicitly states that an election can (and should) be called by the Governor General if the current parliament has proven itself unable to work together.

With the way the Liberals keep roadblocking everything and turning day-to-day tasks into nothing but a power struggle... and the NDP wallowing around, hanging off whichever party's coattails happen to be the longest... the current parliament is nothing but a joke.

Harper has recognized this, and is calling for the GG to assess the situation and call for an election if she feels it's warranted.

In other words, Mr. Harper is FOLLOWING the law. He is USING the law for what it's meant for: making sure the people in charge of running this country (read: ALL of parliament) are doing their job.

He's specifically said that if Canadians decide he's not the right man for the job, then so be it - but he's unwilling to sit on his ass and watch another year go down the drain because the different parties are so busy bickering over whatever scraps of power they can get, that they don't have time (or even care) to do what's right for Canada.

It's called RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. It's pretty much been the CPC's mandate since day one. I realize it's a fairy new concept in Canadian politics, but I hear it's a pretty good mandate to have.

[FlamesAddiction]

Man, Harper looks creepy in that commercial.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

He isn't breaking his own law. The law explicitly states that an election can (and should) be called by the Governor General if the current parliament has proven itself unable to work together.

Really? It says that? Did they pass a new law? Because I am sure the amendment to the election act read something like this.

Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009

With the way the Liberals keep roadblocking everything and turning day-to-day tasks into nothing but a power struggle... and the NDP wallowing around, hanging off whichever party's coattails happen to be the longest... the current parliament is nothing but a joke.

I agree it is becoming a farce, never said otherwise.

Harper has recognized this, and is calling for the GG to assess the situation and call for an election if she feels it's warranted.

Lets not kid ourselves, it is not up to the GG. Either Harper tells her to call one or there isn't one. Nothing in between.

In other words, Mr. Harper is FOLLOWING the law. He is USING the law for what it's meant for: making sure the people in charge of running this country (read: ALL of parliament) are doing their job.

Again, the law states that an election MUST be held on the third monday in october (subject to dissolusion of parliament) which most would agree would be a non confidence vote.

He's specifically said that if Canadians decide he's not the right man for the job, then so be it - but he's unwilling to sit on his ass and watch another year go down the drain because the different parties are so busy bickering over whatever scraps of power they can get, that they don't have time (or even care) to do what's right for Canada.

Fine, I agree but introduce some legislation that the others cannot vote on, don't break your own law.

It's called RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. It's pretty much been the CPC's mandate since day one. I realize it's a fairy new concept in Canadian politics, but I hear it's a pretty good mandate to have.

Dude, I am a CPC support, always have been probably always will be. But I will be the first person to speak out if they do something stupid and breaking your own law IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

[Antithesis]

Well, I'm a guy who'd probably normally vote for the Liberals, but Stephane Dion:

- is a complete goofball
- came up with this Green Shift which I can't support

So, Greens it is.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Well, I'm a guy who'd probably normally vote for the Liberals, but Stephane Dion:

- is a complete goofball
- came up with this Green Shift which I can't support

So, Greens it is.

Elizabeth May is a fool, you might as well be voting for the Taliban considering her opinion on the war in Afghanistan.

[Boblobla]

Minority governments are the biggest waste of tax money there is. It is a very frustrating system that we have.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Clearly that is much worse than enticing an MP from other parties across the floor to the cabinet to avoid losing a confidence vote and to cling to power, especially when you consider the critical cabinet post Belinda was given of "Minister of Complex Files" or whatever made up crap they gave her.

Minister of Funny Walks was the title. A take off from the British Ministry of Silly Walks

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Really? It says that? Did they pass a new law? Because I am sure the amendment to the election act read something like this.

Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009

There. I've bolded the most important part.

Harper is asking the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call an election, on the basis that he has lost the confidence of Parliament.

He may have passed a law to set mandatory election dates, but he didn't remove the Governor General's authority from the Constitution. We still have to have a functional Government. Are we supposed to put up with the current gong show for another year, just because a law was passed that prevents Governments from calling elections whenever they feel like it?

I mean, it would be different if Layton and Dion were actually interested in working with Harper to effect a working Government... but they aren't willing to do that. It's not like they have to agree with Harper (their job is to oppose him, afterall), but they certainly have to work WITH him to achieve a greater good.

It's become quite clear, over the past two years, that Dion and Layton's agendas are to dissrupt Harper's government without forcing an election. In other words, they go in the media and pick everything apart, and threaten to call a confidence vote on every single issue... yet they still don't actually VOTE a lack of confidence. Even when they've had a confidence vote, they still didn't VOTE a lack of confidence.

That's the kicker. They're treating Harper's government like they have lost confidence in it - but they are too terrified of an election, so they are willing to ride it out until the mandatory date. Is that responsible? Is that effective?

It's like a lawyer that forces a witness to say something so the jury can hear it, even though they know it will be objected and sustained. Dion is in the media constantly saying (with his actions) that the Harper Government does not ahve the confidence of Parliament... yet they will not VOTE him down, because they are afraid of an election.

Harper's hands are tied, so he's finally goign to force them to put their money where their mouths are. He's tired of the bully tactics and he's going to let Canadians have their say. He knows he's going to take a hit on this, but he's doing it because he also knows that Canada needs strong leadership - not a bunch of children running around playing tag with each other.

Like he's already said... if he doesn't win, then he doesn't win... but, at least Canadians will have some say in how their government is behaving.

I'm not trying to be flippant, I just don't understand what's so hard to fathom about dissolving a dysfuntional Government and asking Canadians to elect one that will work. I can't be the only person in Canada who's sick and tired of the constant bickering over power and chasing crumbs and scraps, instead of actually working together to represent this country responsibly.

Yeah. Harper's not calling an election on the date that his law says he should... but the Canadian Constitution says we're entitled to an effective, responsible Government.

The last time I checked, the Constitution outranks the Law.

[transplant99]

Dion is in the media constantly saying (with his actions) that the Harper Government does not ahve the confidence of Parliament... yet they will not VOTE him down, because they are afraid of an election

Thats all that needs to be said...well done.

[MarchHare]

What is this great political impasse that's made parliament so disfunctional you're all talking about? Hasn't the government been in recess over the last few summer months? And prior to that, wasn't Dion telling the Liberal caucus to abstain from just about every confidence motion because he didn't want to bring down the government and force an election?

If there was any disfunction in parliament prior to the summer recess, it was the fact that Canada didn't have an effective opposition, thereby allowing the minority CPC to govern as if they had a majority. Surely Conservative supporters must have been thrilled by that situation, no?

[Slava]

There seems to be some confusion over the point of the law that Harper brought in regarding fixed election dates. He stated clearly in Victoria during the last campaign that we needed fixed dates in Canada to prevent elections being called for "crass political motives".

If the Conservatives were governing as if they had a majority (which was reported widely in the spring) then where are those comments now? Surely Harper isn't calling this election based on the same crass political motives that he accused others of having?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Slava

There seems to be some confusion over the point of the law that Harper brought in regarding fixed election dates. He stated clearly in Victoria during the last campaign that we needed fixed dates in Canada to prevent elections being called for "crass political motives".

If the Conservatives were governing as if they had a majority (which was reported widely in the spring) then where are those comments now? Surely Harper isn't calling this election based on the same crass political motives that he accused others of having?

The conservatives keep the majority of their promises. Can't say the same for the "tax axing" liberals. I honestly think they believe Canadians have the memory of a goldfish.

[llama64]

Technically... the Canadian constitution promises "peace, order and good government". There is nothing in there regarding an entitlement to effective and responsible government. For reference: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c...l#distribution

Harper isn't doing anything for the good of Canadian people. He's taking advantage of the political climate in order to secure another term for the Conservatives. It will likely end up a waste of time and money too as Canadians will probably vote close to last time, electing yet another minority government.

Albertan's really don't understand how people think out east. Eastern populations are not happy with a western Prime Minister. They aren't happy with a predominantly western party (at least in their eyes). The economy out east isn't so hot now, especially with Ontario teetering on the edge of being a have/have not province. They aren't going to be voting for a party that represents tax breaks for the rich, extremist social values and promotion of Alberta's oil revenues (this being the optics for the Conservatives in the east).

The ONLY thing keeping the Conservatives in power is Dion.

Honestly, as a Canadian I think all our parties have failed to provide a viable solution to the most dominant political view in our country: Social "liberalism"/Fiscal conservatism. In the olden days, this view was known as "toryism". Unfortunately we have a bunch of raving social conservatives tilting the replacement Conservative party way to far to the right in social policy, leaving us with no resort other then a minority government.

If another election is called in this climate, I'm seeing yet another minority.

[MarchHare]

Honestly, as a Canadian I think all our parties have failed to provide a viable solution to the most dominant political view in our country: Social "liberalism"/Fiscal conservatism.

I had high hopes that a Paul Martin-led Liberal party would provide the fiscally conservative/socially liberal government many Canadians want, but unfortunately he was stymied by scandals all relating to his old political nemesis Jean Chretien. It's a shame we never had the chance to see what Martin could have done as PM if he had been free to govern without Chretien's baggage.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by llama64

Technically... the Canadian constitution promises "peace, order and good government". There is nothing in there regarding an entitlement to effective and responsible government. For reference: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c...l#distribution

you are correct, it does say this. but the POGG (peace, order, and good goverment) clause in section 91 of the constitution is a reference to the distribution of powers between the provincial and federal governments, not the constitutional convention of responsible government. it essentially states that defining the limits and responsibilities of each level of government will minimize "pissing matches" over the authority they each possess... essentially, Canada will have internal peace, order and good government if the roles are clearly defined for each level. For example, could you imagine how inefficient things would be if both levels of government had constitutional jurisdiction over health and education? Nothing would ever get done because of the constant disagreement between the two levels, all of government's time would be spent on infighting.

As for responsible government, it is stated, covered, and implied in the preamble of the Constitution:

"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."

with this wording comes the unwritten constitutional convention of responsible government, or that the government is responsible to its people through the house of commons. should the government lose the confidence of the house, it will be held accountable to it through an election.

hope this helps.