Nice article from a Conservative point of view Boston. It’d be interesting to see some Pro-Liberal articles as well. The Conservatives would do much better outside of Alberta if they changed leadership.If Peter MacKay was the lead you would see a huge difference in the way the east voted.
Too many people fear Harper’s association with the extreme right Reform party when he stayed on the sidelines advising. Also, Harpers support for the sending of troops to Iraq will remain a thorn in his side for quite sometime.
I consider myself Liberal, but I don’t consider the Liberal party as being liberal. I don’t intend to vote Liberal or Conservative. I only wish I had an Independent in my region.
Here’s the difference between Canadians and Americans:
5 Canadians and 1 American are being helicoptered out after 2 months in a northwoods logging camp. The American is so f’in horny, when he spots a female grizzly, he tells the copter pilot to land so they can go F the grizzly. “Are you nuts? Its a grizzly, moron!!”, say the Canadians. The American’s response: “Yeah, but there’s 6 of us!”
Martin seems intent to keep the current Liberal plan on track, which is a pretty sound idea overall. The NDP is playing the role it always has – moral conscience of the parliament. However, with increased popularity, Leyton’s doing a decent job of becoming a little more realistic, IMO.
[/quote]
Ach! Moral conscience? You’ve got to be kidding me. Of all the party leaders, Layton is probably the most fickle. Remember when he leant his party’s support to prevent the government’s budget from being defeated in return for $4 billion in spending on social services!? (This was effectively being treated as a non-confidence vote for those of you that don’t follow Cdn politics) Two months later what happened? When he can’t pretend any longer to ignore the corruption within the liberal party, he lends his party’s support to topple the government.
[quote]
Agreed. What I like about the NDP is that, as a party that hasn’t been in power for a while, they represent the Canadian wish-list of sorts, from which the Liberals can pick and chose what they can afford in their (debatably) reasonable budget.
-Glee[/quote]
I think they’d get quite a few more votes if they actually represented anything more than a wish-list for special interest groups and the poor.
I saw what happened when they voted on the budget and I honestly have no desire to see that again. The government has a history of wasting Canadians’ tax dollars on useles initiatives (see: sponsorship scandal, gun registry, growing of medical marijuana etc.) and as far as I’m concerned the fewer services/social programs controlled and operated by the government the better.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
If Gils Ducieppe weren’t a seperatist I think he would make a great leader. From what I’ve heard of the leaders debates he is defanitely the most intelligent of the bunch. [/quote]
I’ve heard a lot of people say that, and I’m of the same mind. It’s a shame he isn’t head of the Liberal party, instead of that slimeball Martin.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Ach! Moral conscience? You’ve got to be kidding me. Of all the party leaders, Layton is probably the most fickle.[/quote]
If by ‘fickle’ you mean ‘realistic’, I agree wholeheartedly. For example, he’s currently asking disenchanted Liberals to vote for him just this once. Fickle, perhaps, but smart and realistic. I mean, what kind of deluded dumbass would he have to be to gun for the Prime Ministry in his current position?
[quote]Remember when he leant his party’s support to prevent the government’s budget from being defeated in return for $4 billion in spending on social services!? (This was effectively being treated as a non-confidence vote for those of you that don’t follow Cdn politics) Two months later what happened? When he can’t pretend any longer to ignore the corruption within the liberal party, he lends his party’s support to topple the government.
[/quote]
It’s not Layton’s fault Martin couldn’t hold his government together. Martin is a weak leader who succumbed to the Peter Principle when he tried to pull a fast one on the entire parliament by trying to pit one party against the other, instead of forming a true coalition.
You mean if they were exactly like the Liberal party? Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
I agree. I hope Canadian politicians get used to coalition governments. As I may or may not have mentionned previously in this thread, I’d love to see a Dutch-style parliament in Canada.
[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
If Gils Ducieppe weren’t a seperatist I think he would make a great leader. From what I’ve heard of the leaders debates he is defanitely the most intelligent of the bunch.
I’ve heard a lot of people say that, and I’m of the same mind. It’s a shame he isn’t head of the Liberal party, instead of that slimeball Martin.
-Glee[/quote]
Im not going to deny he’s a clever and smart politician, but lets not forget hes in a position that no other leader is in, He’s leading what is essentially a national party not a state party, In short he can chuck shit at anyone and anything outside quebec jurisdiction without alienting any voters,no other party leader could do this without committing political suicide. Plus hes a pretentious arrogant prick
I think they’d get quite a few more votes if they actually represented anything more than a wish-list for special interest groups and the poor.
You mean if they were exactly like the Liberal party? Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
-Glee[/quote]
My greatest fear is that the Liberals will merge with NDP, then we’ll have a totally incompetent government trying to create a socialist paradise. Our justice system is already full of liberal judges handing out mickey mouse sentences, relations with our strongest ally and most lucrative trading partner are at an all time low, and I think we can all agree that taxes are at the upper limit of what any sane person would want to pay, so why is it you think we need more liberal leadership?
Hey hey…I gotta say I’m planning on returning my ballot. (you can do that, right?)
I feel like voting is NOT the strongest way to send a political message. And the way these things work, in my limited understanding, is that victories are not a matter of a group of single voices exercising a democratic resposibility, but individual groups voting with many voices. Hence all the sweeps. So little me casting my little ballot is statistically insignificant. I really am very disenfranchised with the electoral system in general just now…
I won’t lie and say that I pay much attention to Canadian politics, because I don’t, but I am a definite believer in less government involvement.
Government interference from a strictly economic point of view usually leads to a less than optimal outcome. Excessive social programs, government regulation and subsidization has led Canada to have a standard of living (in loose terms) that is 25% or so lower than that of the US (economically speaking). This is strange as the country has more natural resources per capita than anywhere else in the world (Spring water, oil, fish, timber, minerals etc)
I’m not exactly a fan of the Conservatives (as I said earlier I don’t really give a shit about politics as a whole), but their goal to privatize some of the government controlled liberal programs should at least lead to better economic efficiency if done correctly.
The way to have an influence is not to decide to not vote. Nobody gives a shit about the fact that you were to apathetic to get your ass off the couch and cast a vote.
The world is used to people not voting in democracies.
Instead, if you care, and don’t feel voting will be effective, TALK TO YOUR FUCKING REPRESENTATIVES. Tell them what they should be doing for you and every one.
They are just people. You can talk to them. That’s why they are your representatives (or candidates).
They are just people. You can talk to them. That’s why they are your representatives (or candidates).[/quote]
Heck, don’t just talk to them, befriend them. I had my MP over to my house last week. I met him seven years ago when he came to give a presentation at my high school and since then I have made an effort to get to know him. When I have questions or concerns, I talk to him directly. When I cast my ballot, I am checking off beside the name of a person that I believe in with my whole heart.
The same is true of my provincial representative. I don’t get my info from the media. If something is of interest or concern to me, I ask my representative. I know all about the bills he’s working on, and the committees he’s heading.
People always say that politicians are crooked. I have made an effort to get to know five federal and provincial representatives and I can tell you that these are all great people. Don’t take the easy road and just write them all off.
My greatest fear is that the Liberals will merge with NDP, then we’ll have a totally incompetent government trying to create a socialist paradise.[/quote]
I wouldn’t want that either, which is why I’m glad the NDP is a fringe party.
For example?
Actually, they were lower when Pearson refused to join Johnson’s war in Vietnam. I leave the drawing of parallels between then and now as an exercise for the reader.
Besides which, who cares?
All of Scandinavia would disagree. Besides which, when the economy is going well, DON’T FUCK WITH IT. If the economy is being poorly managed at some point, it’s going to tell us it needs to be changed by underperforming.
[quote]so why is it you think we need more liberal leadership?
[/quote]
A. They fixed the giant economic mess Mulroney left us, even though the Conservatives are supposed to be the fiscally-responsible ones.
B. They did so while remaining socially responsible, for the most part.
C. They’ve proven themselves capable of effectively leading for the last 13 years.
D. Better the Devil you know. As they’re under a microscope, it’s highly doubtful the Liberals will be nearly as corrupt as they were during the last 2 years, and certainly not as corrupt as the Conservatives can be at the best of times.
[quote]Jimmy_Jihad wrote:
Excessive social programs, government regulation and subsidization has led Canada to have a standard of living (in loose terms) that is 25% or so lower than that of the US (economically speaking). This is strange as the country has more natural resources per capita than anywhere else in the world (Spring water, oil, fish, timber, minerals etc)[/quote]
A reasonable statement, but more opinion than fact. Economically, Canadians don’t have to pay for the goods and services provided by government programs, so more of our after-tax income is disposable. The real issue is waste in such programs – but that’s another kettle of fish.
In theory, yes. In practice, Conservatives just chop the legs out from under said programs without any sort of phase-out plan. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t it usually leaves a giant expensive mess in its wake. See Mulroney, Entire Career.
CaptainLogic wrote:
Our justice system is already full of liberal judges handing out mickey mouse sentences,
Gleemonex wrote:
For example?
Do you really want me to go there? Would you like 90 specific examples? Because I can give them to you.
[/quote]
Hrm… well, if you’re feeling resourceful, the following would be more pertinent: Could you provide examples of sentencing that could have been executed more effectively in the absence of Liberal influence?
Since the judicial system is far from perfect, I imagine you could. Here’s part 2 of the project: can you find examples that conform to the above, while avoiding the pitfalls of conservative bias in the judicial system?