BS: Canuck Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:31 PM

Finally the Ontariarians and Quebeckers have learned to smell the wild roses and vote with the hard-working good old boys of the Prairies to support what is productive in Canada for the next 4-5 years.
How you twist them figures don't matter nohow.

The canuck dollar will continue at par with the American; maybe someday it will rival the Australian.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:01 PM

Richard - The deep antipathy toward intellectuals ("the resentment of greater intelligence") that is so notable in the American electorate has never been typical of the Canadian electorate. We frequently elect men who come off as intellectuals, and it's no detriment to a Canadian politician's career to be seen that way. This is not a country dominated by the "Joe Six-Pack" mentality. Yes, Albertans like electing a "cowboy" type of personality...but Albertans are a rather small minority in this nation.

Steven Harper (the Conservative leader just elected again) does not give the impression of being stupid nor is he inarticulate. Sneaky? Yes. Ruthless? Yes. Pig-headed? Yes. But definitely not stupid or inarticulate. He may resemble Reagan or Bush in his political philosophy...but he does not resemble them much at all on a personal level. He gives the impression of being a clever city lawyer type in a well-tailored suit...not a guy who lives on a ranch and rides horses and gets his hands dirty.

Ignatief wasn't the kind of guy who gets elected easily, though. He didn't have any visible charisma, his "Canadian" credentials were easily questioned because he'd been living in the USA for quite some time, and it wasn't the right time for either him or his party to do well at the polls.

*******

Doug - Canadians rejected Ignatieff partly because he was seen as "too American"...possibly an agent for American Big Business interests! ;-D What does that do for your theory about them having "woken up"?

For the Liberal Party of Canada to have won this last election was pretty much inconceivable, because they've been in confusion for some time and have really lost their way and have repeatedly failed to come up with a credible leader. The NDP (socialists) took most of their votes this time, because the public has pretty much given up on the Liberals...and Jack Layton (NDP) ran a very good campaign.

About 60% of the voters went to the polls. About 40% of those voted for the Conservatives...who now have a majority, because the other 60% of those voting split their votes between 4 other parties! Anyway, multiply the 60% who voted by the 40% who voted Conservative, Doug. That comes to 24% of the voting public.

That means that 24% of the eligible voters in this country somehow elected a Conservative majority government! Now multiply 60% by 60%. It equals 36% (the number of eligible voters who did not want a Conservative government.

100% of the voters are now ruled over by a Conservative Party that only 24% of them favor, 36% of them oppose, and the remaining 40% are so apathetic or fed up that they don't even vote!!!!!!!!!!

That's not a democracy, Doug. It doesn't mean the Canadian public has "woken up". It more like means they are giving up in despair or disgust....because this electoral system just doesn't work, and we know that it doesn't work. It cannot produce a result that is in accord with what the majority of people here desire.

And you clearly do not understand what's going on here at all. It is not like your 2 party system in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:30 AM

Another perspective

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:48 PM

The resentment of greater intelligence plays out again. That's what gave the USA the dimshit Shrub, and Ronnie Raygun. Look out Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:59 PM

bobad,Good one:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:36 PM

bobad, it was the Quebeckers and Quebeckers who voted differently this time.
Westerners voted as usual; never trust a man who hasn't stepped in a cowpie.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:58 PM

""They nominated someone who nobody likes- a smart-assed professorial type. Not only that but he promised too much.""

Actually, that describes quite a few quite successful political leaders throughout history, and I suspect a few in Canadian history.

And, what politician does not "promise too" during an election? Seems like it goes with the job, most know it, and pay little attention to the election promises anyway. Layton did that also, and it seemed to work quite well for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:51 PM

A lot of voters were intimidated by intellect, especially westerners it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:00 PM

Why are so many surprised that the Liberals collapsed?
They nominated someone who nobody likes- a smart-assed professorial type. Not only that but he promised too much. He is going back to his hole (or tower), and the Liberals have a chance to come back four years from now.
Ignats turned many people off. Justin's dog would have done better.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:08 PM

Where the Sun dont shine

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:08 PM

Not a lot... you are in The Big Slick. Your health care will be okay. Mine sucks big time now (over two years for a day surgery operation so I can breath through my nose). If Harper trashes Medicare, I'm screwed.

Of course, if the Chinese buy the tar sands, and your health care, you are screwed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:59 PM

Nuts! What will affect my pocketbook?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:38 PM

Changes to health care. Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah willbe heard at Tim's.

Quebec and the constitution. Will Harper will negotiate separartion, as he said he would? Leading again questions regarding to PR's Land, Ungava, the First Nations, the St. Lawernce Seaway, James Bay Power, the military... on and on.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:36 AM

Below are some potential issues that IMO, may impact future voting patterns. This is outside of potential government scandals, and normal political discourse discourse). I would not try to speculate on the specifics of any of them.

1) The role of Canada's military beyond Canada's border defence.

2) Changes to health care and other social programs

3) The environment and climate.

4) The economy and taxation (especially corporate).

5) The defecit, debt.

Do you have others?

6) Erosion of government services.

7) Quebec and the constitution

8) Regional economic disparity and government economic support to industry and infrastructure.

9)Canada's relationship with other countries, especially the USA.

10 Federal/provincial issues and changes in provincial governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:24 AM

BluesmanJames
Canada has majority Conservative government as they won more electorial seats. There is no doubt to that.

In a three party system, this should not be interpreted that the Conservatives received the support of more citizens in all areas. That could be the case in many areas, but certainly not in many.

The Conservatives are far right leaning, the NDP far left leaning and the Liberals have tended to take a center position (which leans one way or the other, depending on changing circumstances).

Polls near the election vote indicated the NDP were surging ahead of the Block in Quebec, and were the only likely alternative to the governing conservatives (the Conservatives were in the firm polling lead throughout the election, partly due to strong support in the Praries). Many believe this contributed to many voters switching from the liberals, who (with an unpopular leader) were in second place throughout much of the election campaign, to other parties in seat rich Ontario.

One result seems to be that many former left leaning liberal supporters (in Ontario) switched to NDP. Additionally, former right leaning liberal supporters voted Conservative. Both the NDP and Conservative vote increased, and the liberal vote decreased.

The point I was refuting was that this vote change indicated that the liberal party in Ontario is no longer "operative". While this could be the case, I do not believe that this conclusion logically follows from a seat by seat analysis. This perspective does not consider that in many cases the majority voting in many, if not most, seats were not for the Conservatives and the voting switch may have been for "short term" strategic purposes.

I suspect there will be significant analysis made public in the future and it is just too early to determine exactly what was going on in voters minds. Maybe that could never be done, and it may not matter, as political preferences change,and is often cyclic, much like the weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:54 PM

So in other words, please correct me if I am wrong; you had districts were NDP and Liberals split the "progressive" vote and the Tories won. Is that what happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:57 PM

""I was thinking of a majority in Parliament. The NDP will not garner sufficient votes for that unless there is a depression.""


I submit that Yogi Berra's quote holds for that also.

IMO, lessons of history show that it is "a fools game" to predict, with any accuracy or general statement, the future in the field of politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:24 PM

I was thinking of a majority in Parliament. The NDP will not garner sufficient votes for that unless there is a depression.

I don't know what the Quebec vote meant, beyond the realization that the BQ no longer is viable, and the PC seldom is favored by Quebeckers.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:52 PM

"The ND will attract large numbers only if Canada suffers a prolonged depression."

That surely does not hold true for why the NDP did so well in Quebec? Nor does it explain why they were elected in many provinces in previous years (there is a much closer relationship among NDP provincial and national parties,then there is with other major parties).

In Nova Scotia the main reason for the election of a NDP majority was severe citizen discontent with the poor economic performance of the Conservative Party (in power for many years), that, through poor management, sunk the province into deep debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:49 PM

Ahhh.... that was back in March... still sad, but the sadness began long ago.

No?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:43 PM

So it starts Tories kill access to information database...hold on to your hats ther'll be a lot more of this shit to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:41 PM

"Prediction is very hard, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra

It is interesting to note that polls of voter preference up to the final weeks, aside from the CPC prairies, did not indicate that voters would vote in the way they did, not for any party. In fact, the liberal party, and the Bloc were not doing all that bad throuighout the election, (as a Conservative minority was predicted in most polls for much of the election period). Liberals seemed to be gaining momentium, as the NDP support fell.

Reasons for the last minute shift to the NDP, that caused much of the split votes in Ontario that gave many seats to the Conservatives are still a matter of speculation. No doubt Iggy was a factor, as he had an up hill battle from years of pre election negative advertising. (I suspect one valid reason may be that many voters made a voting shiftfrom the liberals, responding to changes that were happening in latter weeks in Quebec).

As we saw in the final weeks of the election, things can change alot in a short time. IMO, Yogi's quote was true for the period before the final vote, and hold true for predicting the future of the Liberal party (and other parties) in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:28 PM

"Many folks in the USA woulld allow a parliamentary type gov't where No Confidence votes...." Any authority for that? I doubt it.

Canadians vote to support the individual they prefer in their riding; it happens that most don't want to upset Canada's business prosperity and no issues of overriding importance surfaced.
('Seats determine who governs', citizens put members in those seats)

Moreover, the Liberal leaders had put as their head a man few could support. This was a large factor leading to the Conservative majority. He has departed, and Liberals now have a chance to regroup and move back into public favour.

The ND will attract large numbers only if Canada suffers a prolonged depression.

Of course, as some have suggested, the Conservs could lose their majority if they move to make medicare unaffordable or institute tax measures that hurt the average pocketbook.
Alberta and BC have a measure of user-based health funding (haven't looked at other provinces), but not hurting the majority yet.

Health care spending in Canada is increasing rapidly* (averaging 7.5% over the last ten years) and government income is hard-pressed to pay (in Canada as well as in the USA).
Corrective measures would be to cap insurance percentage, institute treatment selection (inhuman and undesirable), reform hospital system, decrease infrastructure support, raise taxes, etc.

*Fraser Institute; Skinner and Rovere, April 2011 - google Canada's Medicare Bubble. Interesting paper, but offers no real solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:01 PM

I think the citizens of Canada finally woke up. Good on, I say.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:01 PM

Having lived In Ontario when BoB Rae was premier, I have no respect for him whatsoever.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:38 PM

Hmmmm... I suppose I should keep me mout' shut but... "Let's discuss what unfolds..."

The only reason I posted that vid is that I thought it was funny. If this thread is going to be about the past election, there is already a thread for that.

My apologies for seeming weeny but could we centralize the discussion along the present topic unless the past election has a direct influence on the present topic? I realize anyone can post whatever they want but there is another thread within which one can discuss the OTHER topic.

Is that a reasonable request or am I missin sommat?... as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:57 PM

""It is the 73 Ontario seats that put the Conservatives in power for the next 4-5 years. They finally found which side had the butter""

While, seats do determine who governs, seats don't vote, citizens do.

IMO, there seems to be an illogical conclusion in the statement.

Liberal-NDP Splits, and the influence of the late polls likely was a larger influence than folks in Ontario, seeing the "westertn view" or taking political sides?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:44 PM

Many folks in the USA would allow a parliamentary type govt. where No Confidence votes can be undertaken. Now can the New Dem and Lib merge to form one party?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:38 PM

In Canada, 40% is a strong majority if the Libs-New dems split.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:36 PM

Yes McGrath... we have the parliamentary system and we understand how it works. We in the Colonial Dominion of Canada in Right of Her Beth are aware of the debatable weaknesses of the system. And we know the politicains will never change it so the point is not debatable. Unless I am missin sommat?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:17 PM

We now have a majority government

Elected by a minority of the voters...

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:41 PM

I remember a while he can out with a record "Old Corrals and Sagebrush"
I understand he was a "conservative" in his thinking/politics. I have never been west of Ontario.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:38 PM

Ian has a ranch there. He is from B.C. and Sylvia is from Ontario.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:35 PM

Which means that can/will revert. As I said, Mr Harper has yet to show his true colours.
PS Isn't Ian Tyson (Ian and Sylvia) from Alberta?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:30 PM

Some people never learn,

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:26 PM

And these same seats voted for Brian Mulrooney in the 80's?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:22 PM

The western vote has been the same for some time. It is the 73 Ontario seats that put the Conservatives in power for the next 4-5 years. They finally found which side had the butter.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:20 PM

"The Canadian people, once they see the real Stephen Harper may demand a "no confidence vote"

It's not up to "the Canadian people" to call for a "no confidence vote". In a parliamentary system it is the opposition parties who do that. It's pretty hard to loose one with a majority of seats in parliament. We do not have a recall mechanism in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: BluesmanJames
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:13 PM

Excuse but I find it hard to believe one misguided election destroys the culture of a country. I lived in Toronto; have been to Montreal and Quebec City, Ottawa and Kingston Ontario and the people are decent progressive people.
Before we go on to doom and gloom this is parliamentary system and Harper has yet to show his true colours. The Canadian people, once they see the real Stephen Harper may demand a "no confidence vote"
Look at Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan (who all border Canada coincidently ) they are all ready to recall their governors.
Lets hear it from Bruce Cockburn.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:51 PM

BTW... how "the East was won".

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:44 PM

Preston Manning... REforrrrm. He was great on 22 minutes and AIR Farce. At least I did trust him as a man who seemed true to his word. This guy, I just don't trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:30 AM

This article is interesting, but does not seem to link:


A quick sketch of a certain political landscape: The Liberals, who had spent a century or so alternating with the Conservatives as the country's governing party, were suddenly racked by internal division and rapidly declining fortunes. The whole sorry situation was highlighted by a clash of party titans that saw a long-serving prime minister pitted against his own finance minister in an unseemly struggle for power.

Election disasters followed, and the grand old party that had ruled the nation so often, and for so long, seemed destined to disappear.

The Conservatives, on the right, watched the unfolding mess with delight.

And on the left, the socialists sensed an unprecedented opportunity to vault over the disintegrating Liberal party and — buoyed by the popularity of their own respected and mustachioed leader — become the country's official Opposition for the first time ever.

Canada, circa 2011? Are we talking Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the Stephen Harper-led Tories and — who else — that furry-lipped phenom, NDP leader Jack Layton?

No, we're not. This was Britain, circa 1922.

And truth be told, they were all wearing moustaches in those days — so we can only push the analogy so far.

But the analogy is intriguing. And it is being pushed a lot these days in the aftermath of an Earth-shaking federal election that has profoundly altered Canada's own political landscape.

The 1920s saw the eclipse of Britain's Liberals — the party of Gladstone and Asquith — as a governing force in that country, and the corresponding rise of Labour as the enduring left-of-centre rival (and natural government-in-waiting, when it isn't actually in government) of the U.K.'s right-of-centre Conservatives.

It's a scenario that some see taking shape today in Canada, a two-party polarization of national politics — or "clarification" as Harper put it during the final week of the federal campaign just concluded — that would see the centrist Liberals disappear or reduced to a permanent rump of red, and future elections fought largely between the forces of Left and Right, the Orange and the Blue.

If it does come to pass, and the party of Laurier joins William Gladstone's on the margins of modern political history, then it would represent the realization of a death-to-the-Liberals dream long shared in Canada by many social democrats and conservatives alike.

Back to Britain, briefly, where a cleavage developed over the handling of the First World War between Liberal prime minister H.H. Asquith and his longtime chancellor of the exchequer, David Lloyd George. The party split into two factions, allowing Britain's Labour party — previously a far-left rump — to rise quickly to become the official Opposition in 1921 (under John Robert Clynes) and government (under Ramsay MacDonald) in 1924.

Ever since, leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties have alternated occupancy of 10 Downing Street.

The toppling of the British Liberals and the advancement of Labour as a viable governing option have been cited fondly for decades by Layton's legendary NDP predecessor, Ed Broadbent, who sees Canada's political culture evolving along similar lines.

Following Monday's historic orange surge, the New Democrats' landmark leap to Opposition and the stunning Liberal collapse under Michael Ignatieff, Broadbent was asked if a merger of the two centre-left parties now made sense.

"The unfolding that began last night is very similar to what happened in England at the turn of the last century," Broadbent replied to CPAC interviewer Peter Van Dusen.

"And, in fact, if you look at Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany — all the continent, not just the U.K. — in the development of democratic politics in Western Europe, and other advanced democracies like ourselves, what's happened there is that the Labour parties, or social democratic parties, replaced the Liberals."

That, Broadbent went on, "is exactly what happened in England. The once-famous Liberal party of England, that had a history like our Liberal party — and dominated 19th-century British politics — suddenly got absorbed or withered away."

He added: "That is what I was working for, to be quite candid, is all those progressive people who voted for the Liberal party to realize that they could have their real home in the NDP."

The essentially two-party political system envisioned by Broadbent — "a choice between two larger parties, one that is left of centre in a democracy, like the NDP, and the other that is right of centre," he told CPAC — was famously laid out for Canadians by the former NDP leader during the 1988 federal election.

"I think it would be healthy in Canada to evolve the way other countries have, like Britain," Broadbent stated at a campaign stop during the Free Trade Election.

Broadbent's comments at that time were widely identified as a major campaign blunder that prompted many progressives — horrified at the prospect of a Canada with no Liberal party — to throw their support to Grit leader John Turner.

The NDP, expected by many to gain Opposition status in 1988, set a party record with 43 seats but fell far short of expectations.

The Liberals "were deeply mired in third place when Broadbent opined that the election would probably eliminate the Liberals, and give rise to a PC/NDP two-party nation!" former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney recalled in his 2007 book Memoirs. "I was astounded that he would make such a statement. I knew it would scare the hell out of undecided Liberals, and drive them right back to Turner."

But it isn't just social democrats such as Broadbent who have hungered for a post-Liberal Canada.

Harper himself, having already engineered the transformation and takeover of the blue forces — an amalgam of the battered, old-line Progressive Conservatives and the ascendant, Alberta-based Reform movement — has long been driven by a desire to open up the middle of Canada's political spectrum by eliminating the Liberals.

"He hates the Liberal party," Harper adviser Keith Beardsley states succinctly in Lawrence Martin's 2010 book Harperland, "and I would say his aim from Day 1 — and I don't think anyone would disagree — was to break the brand. The long-term strategy, that was it."

After Monday's devastating defeat, a shell-shocked Ignatieff nevertheless rallied in defence of his crippled party and its traditional utility as a home for millions of Canadians near the centre of the country's political spectrum.

"I think the surest guarantee of the future of the Liberal Party of Canada," Ignatieff said, "is four years of Conservative government and four years of NDP opposition."

But the prediction and the principle were promptly panned by University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan, the former Conservative campaign manager who spent years writing treatises and plotting strategy with Harper to ensure the rise of a new Canadian conservatism.

"Centre parties have largely disappeared, or continue to survive only as minor parties, in modern democracies," Flanagan wrote in the Globe and Mail, citing a host of examples — "think Republicans versus Democrats in the United States, Conservatives versus Labour in Britain, the Liberal-National coalition versus Labour in Australia," as well as Germany's Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.

"Canada was the big exception with the Liberals dominated politics," he added, but now Canadian exceptionalism is "coming to an end."

As on the left, where the prospect of displacing the Liberals has been a powerful political animus since the rise of the Progressives and the proto-NDP CCF in the 1920s and 1930s, the idea of consolidating all fiscally and socially conservative Canadians within an unapologetically right-wing party has been a motivating force for many decades.

In 1989, a young Reform party policy guru penned a manifesto — and sent it to his leader, Preston Manning — about how the Western-based protest movement should embrace a more explicitly right-wing set of programs and philosophies to build a solid base of support across Canada and help initiate a wholesale realignment of Canada's political order.

Stephen Harper's appeal to Manning, recounted in William Johnson's 2005 biography of the future prime minister, was particularly clever since he cited the writings of Manning's own father — Alberta's longtime Social Credit premier Ernest Manning — to advance the argument.

E.C. Manning's 1967 treatise Political Realignment, has been described as having been "ghost written" by the premier's son. And Harper reminded the younger Manning that the book "argued that, to address the modern electorate and modern issues, Canadian partisan politics needed to be realigned into two more ideologically coherent parties, a Social Conservative Party and a Social Democratic Party."

Harper's own ideas have undergone significant transformations since 1989.

And not much about Canadian politics has remained the same since the Mannings offered their vision of a two-party electoral system in 1967.

But the vision of a country without Liberals commanding the political centre — inspired by British history, and made to seem tantalizingly close by Canada's latest election — continues to fire imaginations on the left and right.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:41 AM

Fortress West


Is "canuck" an offensive term?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:31 AM

From another website:

""T Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 am Taxpayer financing of federal parties

Move quickly to eliminate opposition parties. This could have immediate savings and avoid the need for future elections. Establish a "Central Committee" which will look after choosing President, Prime Minister etc etc. Elections can become a thing of the past and billions can be saved. With such low turnouts for elections as they are, I doubt anyone will notice. With a solid majority, our government should move quickly to eliminate useless oppostion which really has no power anyway.""

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:23 AM

""Weaknesses of a Minority Government
There are also several weaknesses to having a minority government:

•Instability: The major weakness of minority governments is their tendency to last for only a short period. Consequently, governments are often unable to fully pursue their policies or mandates before the coalition or negotiations with other parties collapses. The average duration of minority governments in Canada is approximately 18 months.
•Inconsistency: Because minority governments have to negotiate with other parties regularly to get legislation passed, it is difficult to bring consistency to government policy. The governing party may have to compromise with one party on one issue and then compromise with another party on a different issue. This is particularly problematic in economic policy where government actions in one area can negate or defeat government actions in another area.
•Inefficiency: The constant demand for negotiation can slow government down considerably. Instead of being able to take swift action on demanding issues, governments are forced to engage in lengthy and tedious negotiation with other political parties. This can be extremely problematic with issues that require immediate action, such as foreign policy and the budget.
•Blameless government: Minority governments open the possibility for less accountability. This is because the different parties are working together in making government policy. Consequently, it can be difficult to locate blame when policy goes wrong, as the different parties may simply blame one another. ""

""Benefits of a Minority Government
While much depends on the types of parties and leaders involved, there are several benefits to having a minority government:

•Responsiveness: Minority situations make governments extremely responsive to the views of MPs. Instead of government policy being decided by the Prime Minister and Cabinet — with elected members simply following party discipline — governments are forced to take into account the views of its own elected members and the views of other parties to ensure that legislation is passed.
•Accountability: A minority or coalition government is also more accountable. This is especially true of minority governments that depend on other parties' votes. Opposition parties can hold a government accountable for its actions very effectively by threatening or actually undertaking a vote of non-confidence or voting down government legislation.
•Transparency: Minority or coalition governments force a lot of communication between parties. For the governing party to pass bills, it must inform other parties of its intentions. This higher level of communication makes government policy much more public and, as a result, much more transparent.
Weaknesses of a Minority Government
There are also several weaknesses to having a minority government:

•Instability: The major weakness of minority governments is their tendency to last for only a short period. Consequently, governments are often unable to fully pursue their policies or mandates before the coalition or negotiations with other parties collapses. The average duration of minority governments in Canada is approximately 18 months.
•Inconsistency: Because minority governments have to negotiate with other parties regularly to get legislation passed, it is difficult to bring consistency to government policy. The governing party may have to compromise with one party on one issue and then compromise with another party on a different issue. This is particularly problematic in economic policy where government actions in one area can negate or defeat government actions in another area.
•Inefficiency: The constant demand for negotiation can slow government down considerably. Instead of being able to take swift action on demanding issues, governments are forced to engage in lengthy and tedious negotiation with other political parties. This can be extremely problematic with issues that require immediate action, such as foreign policy and the budget.
•Blameless government: Minority governments open the possibility for less accountability. This is because the different parties are working together in making government policy. Consequently, it can be difficult to locate blame when policy goes wrong, as the different parties may simply blame one another. ""

""Initiatives by Federal Minority Governments:
While minority governments have often been unstable and shortlived, their impact on Canadian society has nevertheless been great. The following provides a list of key policies and initiatives undertaken by federal minority governments:

•In 1925, Mackenzie King's minority Liberal government agreed to implement old age pension legislation to keep the support of Progressive and Labour Party MPs. The legislation was implemented in 1927.
•In the 1960s, Pearson's minority Liberal government introduced several key components of Canada's modern social-welfare system, including universal health care, government loans for university students, the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). These initiatives were in part due to the close cooperation between the Liberals and New Democratic Party during Pearson's minority governments.
•Between 1972 and 1974, Trudeau introduced a program of economic nationalism that included the creation of PetroCanada. In addition, old age pensions were indexed to the cost of living. Again, this was due in part to the close cooperation between the Liberals and NDP during Trudeau's minority government.""

""In majority government the Prime Minister and Cabinet have an incredible amount of control over the government policy and direction. S/he can enact whatever policy they like, and then exercise party discipline to ensure that those policies are supported in the House (and enacted into law). The only threat to such a government is internal dissent and a revolt by the governing party's own MPs (which rarely occurs in Canadian politics).""

Personal observation:
Outside of "doing the right thing", and "a potential fear of not getting elected in four years", with the control of the Senate, the governing folks may have one main concern. This could be the impact initiatives, policies and legislation could have on Quebec (aka keeping them in Canada), that is now mostly represented by the official opposition, the NDP.

Source of material cited:
We now have a majority government

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:59 AM

I like Bob Rae.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:39 AM

CP... Jean Chretien is urging Liberals to support Toronto MP Bob Rae as interim leader of the decimated federal party.

The alarm went off?

Subject: RE: BS: Canuck Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:53 AM

All of the decency once thought to be found in Canada has been rejected.

Subject: BS: Canuck Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:07 PM

The election is history. The future is at hand. Who's hand is in your pocket? Who's hand is shaking your hand?

A lot was posted on the election thread, good and ba, so to speak. Let's discuss what unfolds in a mannerly fashion (hahahahaha... yeah, right... *I* said that! Sue me!).

Really...I need the edification from others in this here Café that have taught me much in the past. I have my views but, as Kendall says, I never learned anything from someone who agreed with me.

Let the mind games begins.