High drama. Betrayal (Belinda Stronach changing sides), and it all boiled down to one independent, who they had no idea which way he would vote. The vote of non-confidence was a tie. 152-152. It is the first time in Canadian history that the Speaker has decided whether the government would survive or not. He voted with the government, and the government has survived.
Not your typical Canadian politics.
I'm not sure about all this. I like what the Liberals stand for, but with the whole sponsorship scandal, I am not sure I can trust them. If there was an election, I think I would vote NDP (If I was old enough, of course). I like their platform, and they are more trustworthy than the liberals are, and would not throw away taxpayer’s money on ad agencies.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched this with my dad. It was pretty stressful for a second or two.
I was pretty unsure of what I wanted during the process however. I generally support the NDP, but I don't think I really approve of the budget. It's going to increase the deficit and I don't really feel that's a good move right now, or really ever.
I think I probably would have voted against the budget. Also, I don't really think Paul Martin is a very effective PM. He seems to dawdle around the issues without dealing with anything.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't paid attention to Canadian politics since, well, ever, but the party I support is Reform. If they're still around. Back in the 70s and 80s, I supported the Rhinoceros party.
I'm sad the non-confidence vote didn't pass. I like uprisings in Canadian politics. Keeps things interesting.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in all this the NDP come out looking the best. They look co-operative and managed to get some major concessions for their party. And they look like the good guys for their sympathy for the Tory MP who had cancer and couldn't vote (the NDP offered to have one member abstain to be fair).
But such drama! Betrayal and heartbreak, appedicitis (not really) and cancer. Independant MPs holding the balance of power. This is the stuff that only tv writers actually think up. Maybe truth IS stranger than fiction.
I don't like the Liberal government, personally. I would be very happy to see them ousted. But if it had happened this way, I think the public perception of the Tories would have been negative. I think it would have worked against them. "Mean spirited" isn't a great public face to have.
Once the Gomery inquiry is over, I hope there's an election and the Liberals get trounced. But for now, stability is good.
(Oh, and I would love to see some codified penalities for fiscal irresponsibility and deceit and theft. It seems like it's a whole different world up on Parliament Hill. But I'm just dreaming.)
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, it probably is best that everything remains fairly stable until the stupid inquiries are over.
I hope they are over quickly. I'm getting sick of hearing about them. It's really infuriating that something like this happened. I know I generally have a fairly romantic point of view, but I really don't understand why it happened.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a terrible time for a vote as far as federalism was concerned. With it being quite possible that the PQ would take Quebec in the next provincial election allowing the Bloque to take more seats in the house would be the perfect staging ground for yet another vote on separation. Mind you, it should come as no surprise that the conservatives would go for it anyway as they have all but given up on Quebec (how many ridings actually have conservative candidates?) and their party's entire existence owes itself to Peter McKay whoring the Conservatives to the Alliance proving that victory was more important than ethics. Never mind that he won leadership mostly uncontested on the condition that he would not join the party with the Alliance as too many of their views don't line up. It's kind of funny that Belinda Stronach was dating Peter McKay, which allows us to say things like "She robbed Peter to pay Paul". But then, she jumped right into a cabinet position so I guess Paul paid her.
Don't take that rant as my blessings for the liberals. They are slimy, underhanded and unquestionably corrupt (though not as corrupt as many would have you believe. Paul Martin was mentioned in tertiary hearsay (I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy.) Made more complicated by the fact that nobody knows who the first guy was and the second guy is dead so you can't ask him) and they also aren't alone in the allegations of corruption.
But I agree with EL, the NDP comes out looking the cleanest of the bunch, much as they did in many (most even) of the debates I saw in the past federal election. When you've got nothing to lose you can actually be honest. That they're the only party to attempt to get anything done in the past few weeks will only serve them in good stead, but I don't think any can actually call them a viable alternative at this point.
So where does this leave us? Pretty much where we were a year ago. Almost exactly the same place, really, considering how little has been done in the House. The greatest crime of the liberal sponsorship scandal has been the time squandered in the House over it. There might be a brief reprieve as the Conservatives figure out where to go from here. The party is deeply fractured (as are the liberals, but they kinda have to keep on ruling), primarily over social lines. A fracture that's compounded by the lack of support they've received from Canadians according to polls. Canadians are mad with the Liberals, sure, but they aren't supporting the Conservatives in droves. They really need to sit down and ask themselves why that would be. If they really were the answer Canadians were hoping for, the answer they want, why aren't they flocking to them now that the Liberals are being dragged through the mud? I think the answer is pretty clear, the public is scared of what they'd do to the country and siphoning off money to a corrupt government is less distasteful than the "hard-line" right wing and, let's face it, Christian values the Conservatives stand for. If, as the Blues say, this is a distortion than they need to start convincing Canadians that these "Conservative Myths" are just that: myths.
Not that the money will start flowing, most of the measures in the budget are gone over with a fine-tooth comb by another commitee and tabled before the House before the spending is officially Oked. And, you guessed it, every single one of those is also a Confidence motion. So we could see more Liberal stalling and Conservative threatening and a stymied House until the thing finally rolls over and dies when Gomery is complete (assuming Martin keeps his word about that).
posted
Heh. Of course you voted Reform, quid, you're from Alberta! Without Alberta the right wing wouldn't even exist in Canada Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm from Alberta too. I voted Liberal because my riding was extremely close and I am scared of Stephen Harper getting power. If my riding hadn't been so close I would have thrown my vote to the Green Party (so they could get funding for future elections which they did anyway).
Turns out it didn't matter much as Kilgour has now left the Liberals leaving us with what, 1 Liberal MP in Alberta? It's kinda scary how conservative this province is.
I am always a little nervous when politics come up. Since I am religious, most people think I am also politically conservative which I am not. There are a few issues that I find myself in line with the conservatives as far as personal beliefs go but I really fear that they will gut the social programs that make Canada great.
There are several people I work with who are strong NDP supporters and I think we are getting more left leaning people in Alberta, but only in Edmonton (and maybe a little in Calgary). All the rural communities are very conservative.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Bob, I'm not technically from Alberta, just lived there a lot. I was born in Manitoba in the frozen north, then we moved to BC, then Alberta, then I moved again to BC, then back to Alberta, then again to BC, and then to Sri Lanka, with stops in a lot of little hick towns along the way.
posted
Is Reform right? I've never been able to get left vs. right straight. Never. In my entire life. Despite having it explained thousands of times. *sigh*
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the upside I can now vote! Bring on the election!
Actually, I was happy that the government survived and that Belinda Stronach felt dramatic enough to defect and take the submarine with her, as it were .
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really eager for an election, but I changed my mind the day before the vote. An election would sadly have left us at pretty much the same stage we are at now, with a Liberal minority government. When there is an election, I want the Liberals to be brought to their knees.
On the short run, I think Belinda obviously hurt the Tories, but it may prove to be a huge blessing to them in the long run. She was a huge source of tension and disunity in the part. And I, for one, was not sorry to see her go.
Also, contrary to most people in English Canada, I have been watching Quebec very closely in the last little while, and I think that we may be on the verge of seeing some very interesting changes. A poll published in La Presse on Wednesday revealed the inexplicable fact (which everyone overlooked) that Stephen Harper's approval rating has shot way up in the last three months. From a measly 9 percent of people polled who claimed they trusted him as leader in February, that number has astonishingly shot up to 21 percent.
While this is miniscule compared to the national level, it is downright enormous for Quebec. Taken together with the fact that several Tory candidates came in as extremely close seconds last time around, and that an increasing number of Quebecers are very desperate to get rid of the Liberals and keenly aware that voting Bloc would not achieve this, I would not be surprised to see a sudden resurgence in support for the Tories in Quebec, especially in the Quebec City region and the Eastern townships, two regions which have historically been more conservative than the rest of the province. I'm not counting on it, but like I said, I'll be watching closely.
Because of all this, I am glad that the Liberals were not toppled on Thursday. We must give them time to dig their grave a little deeper.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't taken the time to read all of this, yet...but today on the radio they played a little mix they called "The Peter McKay Blues"
...and the indepenant (Charles somethingorother) was an amusing case because he was the MP for Surrey, a city about an hour from here and part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), and he was a Liberal MP...except he was dropped as the representative for the past federal as he was sick so they didn't think he'd get enough votes for them. So he ran as an independant and won, losing the Liberals that riding. Summed up, him having the final vote just plain amused me.
Edit: Charles Cadman (or is it Chuck?) that's it...at least, I'm pretty sure that's it
posted
Des: Because twelve years is way too long for anyone to be in power. They need to take Justin Trudeau's advice and take some time off to get reconnected with reality. The worse they are beaten at the election, the better it will be for their party in the long run (and therefore, the better it will be for the rest of us who have to live with them.) I wouldn't mind seeing something like what happened to the Tories in 1993. That would keep them out of the picture for the next decade at least. Then they can come back when we get sick of the Tories.
Rei: Cadman was a Reform/Alliance MP. And he wasn't booted out of the party, he lost the nomination for his riding when an Indo-Canadian signed up everyone from the Indian community to get them to vote for him. He then ran as an independant and got re-elected anyway. Then the Conservatives asked him to re-join their caucus, and he preferred to stay on his own.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason that the Liberals have had power more frequently than any other party in Canada: they occupy the centre of the political spectrum here more often than any other party.
The Conservatives are presently too socially conservative to have a good shot at forming a government. Ontarians and Québecois will not support them in any significant numbers until the social aspects of their platform fall more in line with the views of people who... <generalization> well, basically people who don't live in Alberta. </generalization>
That the Conservatives couldn't have won if the government had fallen today, despite the continued presence of the sponsorship scandal at the forefront of media coverage, should tell them something about Harper's viability as a leader. His party's comments about Stronach's defection (with the exception of Peter McKay, who was the very picture of decorum and gained a lot of respect in my view) were also quite revealing, and say a lot about what conservative Westerners think about central Canadians. As long as the Reform/Alliance/Alberta platform is the Conservative Party platform, and as long as the party leader is a Reform/Alliance/Alberta leader, I don't think they'll get elected, and I think this week showed it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... their platform isn't the Reform/Alliance platform, and hasn't been for a while. Haven't you been paying attention? Too socially conservative? They completely dropped the abortion issue (more's the pity), in effect giving assent to the extremely radical position of no legislation whatsoever, and they want to institue civil unions while preserving the definition of marriage. This makes them more left-of-centre than conservative (again, it's a pity). Of course, this will never be enough, because liberal extremists have a firm grip on the mainstream media in Canada, and the very words "moderate" and "extremist" have become completely meaningless through dishonest manipulation.
As for what westerners feel about Quebec and Ontario, I totally understand and sympathize with their frustration. I have lived in Quebec most of my life, and now in Ontario for the past year, and the arrogance of central Canadians is so infuriating my head could explode. Ontario has basically been systematically alienating every other member of confederation for years, and I think we are headed towards an unprecedented national crisis.
Or haven't you noticed the worrying resurgence of seperatist movements in Newfoundland, Quebec, B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan... heck, just about everywhere but Ontario?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't think to read all the options on the ballot from our provinicial election last week, to see if we had a rep for the Annexation party or the one that wants to form the country of Cascadia
...on that note, the Single Transference Vote system wasn't passed, but apparently it got a strong approval just not strong enough to pass
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: the Reform/Alliance platform, and hasn't been for a while. Haven't you been paying attention? Too socially conservative?
I have been, yes. And yes, too socially conservative. However, I should add that I tend to include things like private delivery of health care services under the "social conservative" umbrella, although really they should be under some sort of libertarian umbrella I suppose.
quote: They completely dropped the abortion issue (more's the pity), in effect giving assent to the extremely radical position of no legislation whatsoever, and they want to institue civil unions while preserving the definition of marriage. This makes them more left-of-centre than conservative (again, it's a pity)
I think you mean no federal legislation.
Wanting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage is socially conservative. How is it left of centre? Let's not even get into the fact that doing that sort of "seperate but equal" thing is a really, really bad idea.
quote:Liberal extremists have a firm grip on the mainstream media in Canada
Um, what? We must not read or watch the same "mainstream media." I find Canadian media more tolerable than American media but it certainly doesn't reflect my extremist liberal views.
I'm from the East Coast, and lived there for most of my life. By your assessment I should feel alienated and oppressed by central Canada. Oddly enough, I do not. I live in Ontario now, but out here when people are complaining it's usually about the federal government, not about Ontario. Usually the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to be specific.
I also think "resurgence" is much too strong. In Québec it seems to me that lots of non-separatists are supporting the Bloc because of the Sponsorship scandal, to show the Liberals who's boss, not because they actually want to leave Canada... and also because they know that this kind of whining and "we'll separate" cries can garner some special treatment for them. I also think it's similar in the other provinces. They have seen Québec getting special treatment as a result of this kind of foolishness and so now they want to try it too.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
