NationStates Jolt Archive

If Paul Martin can prove he is not a lier and actually holds an election after the Gomery Report comes out about the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal in Quebec, well, then we'll have another election. Here are the wonderful choices:

Liberal Party (currently are government, although in a minority, have made a coalition with the New Democratic Party): Have moved more towards the right since Martin took over from Chretien, have some solid cabinet members such as Ralph Goodale or Anne McLellan but otherwise, a rather umimpressive government. Brought in the hated gun registry, although they did officially legalise same-sex marriage and have maintained a surplus(only G8 Nation to have one). Been in power since 1993.

Conservative Party (members of Alliance/Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party unified 2003-2004, currently opposition): This party is the right wing party, very focused on social conservatism. Are in the midst of inner turmoil and may toss leader Stephen Harper for Peter McKay, a choice that could move the party more towards the centre and relevance with more Canadians (I am a member of this party, although I come from the Progressive Conservative side, not the stupid Reform side).

Bloc Quebecois (are a Quebec Seperatist party and as such, only run MPs in Quebec): This party has taken a huge lead in Quebec because of the Sponsorship Scandal and are tied in with the provinicial Parti Quebecois, who have tried to seperate Quebec from Canada twice. The Bloc made a coalition with the Conservatives last spring to bring down the Liberals but failed. Ideology wise, they are very socialist, infact their leader was a former Communist Party member.

New Democrats (in a coalition with the Liberals): This is Canada's main socialist party. Their popularity usually hangs around 18-20% of voters, and their main support is urban, as they are social activists as well as fiscal socialists. Leader Jack Layton, in the last election, accused the Prime Minister of "killing homeless people" by not doing more to help the homeless in Canada but in particular, Toronto. Layton is an super socialist, who sadly, sympathizes with Marc Emery, leader of the Marijuana Party, who made anti-semitic comments about Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice, this summer (Emery is facing deportation to the US as part of the Americans war on drugs, Layton opposes his deportation).

Green Party (have no seats, atlhoguh about 5-6% of voter support): This party is, of course, focused with the environment, although Leader Jim Harris describes the party as fiscally conservative. If some of their views on the environment weren't so extreme, they would gain far more support with Liberals. The only other party I could see myself voting for.

Christian Heritage Party (have no seats): This is a right-wing, biggot party thats only goal is make homosexuals change their "perverted ways" and become hetrosexual.

Marijuana Party (have no seats): The name says it all, although losing Marc Emery would hurt their cause.

The Liberals will likely form another minority government after the election, as they have lost most of their support on the Praries and in Quebec.

I am not from Canada, though I have friends there and follow their politics a bit (more interesting than the bickering and economic pedantry here in the UK). Personally, I think having New Democrats in government is a good idea (probably as part of coaliton with Liberals), and that keeping parties like Christian Heritage without seats is a very good idea (at least, unlike the similar party in Australia, none of them have openly called for homosexuals to be burned).

NDP or Liberals.

Reform would make good opposition if they could get their shiat together. The current Liberal scandal is largely Chretien's fault and Martin is going to be judged on how he takes care of it.

It depends on Martin I guess.

I think the Conservative party will come out on top despite internal problems. If Peter McKay takes leadership, I'd put money on the Conservatives. I'd vote for them if I was old enough.

I'm really not a fan of the NDP (Or NPD as I'm used to in Quebec).

Paul Martin brings down the Liberals.

The Green Party, like La Terra, is the only other party I would vote for.

The other two aren't even in my books.

Ok, here's my call:

A slim Liberal majority government, with gains for the NDP and yet another drubbing for the Refor- erm, Allia- ahh... the... "Conservative" party. Silly rabbits, when will they learn that embracing Social Conservatism is a sure-fire ticket to remaining a regional political rump-end with no future in Canadian politics?

My (formerly) Progressive Conservative friends and family will continue voting Liberal, as Ralph Goodale and Paul Martin are their kinda Tories. That is to say, Fiscal Conservatives with that undeniable dash of Social Progressiveness.

Now given my druthers, I'd like to see Smilin' Jack Layton gain the PMO in a minority government held in check by the Grits (Liberals) or even the Bloc-heads. Particularly as Jack is just the sort of guy to throw aside the whole 'continuation of personal political power' in favour of rolling up his sleeves and delivering solid political change as part of his mandate.

Ironically, the kinds of changes Jack is in favour of would be pleasing for your western Reform-a-Tories, too. Two birds with one stone: Senate Reform and Proportional Representation. Easy - scrap the unelected Senate model in favour of a Senate staffed by party appointment based on percentage breakdowns of the national vote. If we had a 100- member Senate, the Greens'd manage to get 5 or 6 Senators appointed by their party leader. The NDP would probably manage something between 20 and 25, and so on. We can ditch the cronyism and get ourselves more voices in Ottawa. It's a win-win.

...And I must admit, I know personally that Jack is in favour of this, as I was lucky enough to chat with him during last year's campaign. Believe it or not, this guy is the realest deal on Parliament Hill - we could do a Helluva lot worse than to give Jack our votes. After all, look at Steve Harper over the last 6 or 7 months - here was a guy berating all of us for not dispensing with our political horse-sense and electing a party that none of us philisophically endorse, for the simple, express purpose of ousting the current semi-populist seated gov. Know what? That just ain't gonna happen except in some feverish Tory dreams.

We will never trust Harper and the Reform-a-Tories. And don't assume anyone's going to trust Peter McKay either - he rather played his cards when he totally and completely betrayed the Progressive Conservative party. I think it's amazing how blithely he destroyed most of his political capital on that one incredibly misguided betrayal. What's more amazing is that he continues being blithely unaware of his name being synonymous with mud.

I feel sorry for people like my aunts, who have felt left out in the cold for the last 12 or 13 years by the implosion of the old PC party. They deserve a voice just as much as we Lefties.

I would be very surprised if the Liberals didn't win another minority government. I don't think the Conservatives can pull off a win with Harper as leader - and even if he did, one socially conservative bill would unite the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc to bring down the house. And we'd be into election territory again. Since I don't seriously believe that the "Canadians don't want another election so soon" meme would matter to politicians or the media if it was the Conservatives in the house. Oh sure, the National Post or the Sun might sing that song, but the opposition parties wouldn't be listening.

The Conservatives haven't a hope in hell of a majority gov't, and the Liberal chance at a majority is almost as slim.

At the moment, I'm hoping that both the Liberals and the Conservatives lose seats, and the NDP gain a few. That is possible in BC - BC is going to be a real battleground, whenever the next election is. The NDP and the Greens poll higher there than anywhere else, and the Libs and Cons lower. David Anderson's Victoria seat used to be a safe Liberal seat, but he only won over the NDP vote by 1000 votes last election - and he won't be running again. I would be utterly confident in an NDP win here, if David Turner were running again, but he was replaced as a candidate. :( There are some north island and northern interior ridings where the Conservatives and the NDP were duking it out for the ridings, and they were within a hundred votes of each other. It'll be interesting, and nice that we BCers will actually have a real effect on the election - when a majority gov't is about to be elected, our votes just get, well, lost.

I'd like to see a real Liberal/NDP coalition out there (with their combined votes equalling a majority, not the situation we have currently), with a strong Conservative opposition. It would be nice if having Jean as a G-G actually softened the Bloc vote in Quebec, but that's probably plain old wishful thinking. It would be great in the Greens could win a seat, but I don't know where they could make a breakthrough. BC? Calgary? Both of those places are Green hotspots. If Jim Harris was running in either of those places instead of in Toronto, then maybe he'd get a seat.

(Okay, honestly? I'd prefer that neither the Liberals nor Conservatives won, but that is such an unrealistic suggestion that no one can take it seriously, so I have to go with the best realistic scenario.)

Vote NDP!

If i was canadian...

This is a little bit off-topic, but if anyone has any (well, a lot of) time on their hands, I wonder if they'd be interested in verifying whether a press release I saw recently is correct.

Unfortunately, the only source for this I’ve been able to find online is on the NDP website, but they also include a link to the PDF’d federal report, which basically lays out 22 years worth of numbers: fiscal transactions, budget revenues, and budget expenses, both federally and provincially. You can see pretty quickly which years had deficits and which surpluses. What they don’t list in the tables is the governing party for each year. Apparently the NDP party had some poor soul matching them up, hence their press release.

Granted, there is more to governing than balancing the books, but I was shocked and a little bit scared by the numbers the release presented. And I’m surprised that the media hasn’t picked any of this up, or maybe not. It would be a lot of boring time to match government to numbers to verify or debunk the NDP statements.

Anyway, here’s their claims:

NDP governments have balanced the books 46% of the time.
Conservative goverments have balanced the books 35% of the time.
And Liberal goverments have balanced the books 21% of the time.

The Links:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/1627
http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2005/frt05_e.pdf

So while I'm dying to find out whether this is true or not, I don't have time to work it out for myself. Maybe there is a Liberal or Conservative supporter out there who wants to debunk this to defend their party? Or an NDPer who wants to confirm it?

Edit: By the way, when I say this scares me, I mean, I'm scared that Canadian governments appear to run deficits far more often than they balance budgets (or run surpluses).

It would be nice if having Jean as a G-G actually softened the Bloc vote in Quebec, but that's probably plain old wishful thinking.
Many of our Prime Ministers for the past 35 years have been from Quebec and that hasn't helped anything, leave alone an unelected representative of the Queen whose job is to spend a lot of tax dollars. I'm still boggling over that choice of G.-G.

We've forgotten one thing. The Liberals would be stupid to hold an election in the middle of winter-- trust me, extreme temperatures DO have a huge impact on how the vote goes. Count on the election being a month or two later.

Canada has a government and elections? I thought it was just a frozen tundra, home to polar bears and the like. :confused:

NDP governments have balanced the books 46% of the time.
Conservative goverments have balanced the books 35% of the time.
And Liberal goverments have balanced the books 21% of the time.

Ummm...how many federal NDP governments have we had in the last 22 years? None? And how many Conservative governments? Was it...one?

If I'm 18 right now, I'll vote for:

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

Ummm...how many federal NDP governments have we had in the last 22 years? None? And how many Conservative governments? Was it...one?

It counts both federal and provincial governments from all the provinces for the last 22 years. That's a lot of governments of all stripes. As I said in the original post.

Look at the PDF, there are a hell of a lot of numbers to review. If it was just federal, this would be easy.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2005/frt05_e.pdf

I would be seriouly surprised if the Liberal government did not win the next election. No one wants Harper except for the ultra right, which almost does not exist in Canada with the exception of some in Alberta. The NDP has never won a federal election, ever! The Liberals have held power in Canada for most of the last 100 years, with the exception of 2 conservative wins and 3 if you include Joe Clark who got tossed after 8 months. I do believe that the Liberal party is Canada's only real choice.

Many of our Prime Ministers for the past 35 years have been from Quebec and that hasn't helped anything, leave alone an unelected representative of the Queen whose job is to spend a lot of tax dollars. I'm still boggling over that choice of G.-G.
Well, the Separatist agenda has been around for 35 years, and really is no closer to being reality than it was 35 years ago. how can you say having PMs primarily from Quebec hasn't helped anything?

You think if all our PMs had been from Ontario or Alberta that would have helped?

No pleasing some people, I tells ya.

I would be seriouly surprised if the Liberal government did not win the next election. No one wants Harper except for the ultra right, which almost does not exist in Canada with the exception of some in Alberta. The NDP has never won a federal election, ever! The Liberals have held power in Canada for most of the last 100 years, with the exception of 2 conservative wins and 3 if you include Joe Clark who got tossed after 8 months. I do believe that the Liberal party is Canada's only real choice.
Umm... you're forgetting Dief. No really, there've been any number of Conservative govs in the last hundred years. It's just been in the post-2nd Worlf War era that the Grits've come out on top more often than not.

Umm... you're forgetting Dief. No really, there've been any number of Conservative govs in the last hundred years. It's just been in the post-2nd Worlf War era that the Grits've come out on top more often than not.

Overall, there have been more Grit governments than Tory ones. By a count of governments since 1867, there have been 25 Grit governments, 12 Tory governments, and 1 Unionist government, a combo of Grits and Tories.

Note that party names were subject to change, which is why I used Grit and Tories as opposed to Libs and Cons.

Overall, there have been more Grit governments than Tory ones. By a count of governments since 1867, there have been 25 Grit governments, 12 Tory governments, and 1 Unionist government, a combo of Grits and Tories.

Note that party names were subject to change, which is why I used Grit and Tories as opposed to Libs and Cons.
K, I actually hadn't seen it broken down like that. Hmm, what're the totals in terms of years of Grit Vs. Tory (Vs. Unionist) governance? Weren't there a number of short-lived Grit governments?

(Feeling like I probably need some remedial Canadian history now, d-uhh.)

K, I actually hadn't seen it broken down like that. Hmm, what're the totals in terms of years of Grit Vs. Tory (Vs. Unionist) governance? Weren't there a number of short-lived Grit governments?

(Feeling like I probably need some remedial Canadian history now, d-uhh.)

In terms of years, I think (but am not absolutely sure), that the Grits are still ahead, but only just barely. There have been some short lived Tory govt's as well - Joe and Kim leap immediately to mind.

'K, this is a total thread hijack, but I just read this, and I have to share it:

Canada has cumulatively contributed more troops to peacekeeping operations worldwide than all other nations combined and currently serves in over 42 different peacekeeping missions, more than any other country.

We have contributed more troops to peacekeeping than all other nations combined! Holy crap! Way to go us! That makes me very proud!

Please wait while I get over my extreme fit of nationalism...

We have contributed more troops to peacekeeping than all other nations combined! Holy crap! Way to go us! That makes me very proud!

Please wait while I get over my extreme fit of nationalism...
I think this is why we're pretty rock-solidly behind the UN in general up here - Peacekeeping is OUR kinda militarism... and in a sense, kinda makes us the world's policemen, after all - not some ahh, other, more erm - vocal nation who likes calling itself all sorts of self-important things.

Heh. So we're GloboCop. That's pretty funny. Maybe it's all part of a plot hatched by Lester B. Pearson to conquer the planet right under the nose of the UN, eh?

*chuckles*

And uh... Canada will still pick Liberal in the upcoming election.

*puts on non-thread-hijacking face, sits upright*

Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

I live in Quebec and I vote NDP. I just wish our voting system was reform so that my vote would actually count.

Last elections, my vote for Jack amounted to f*ck-all. I hate the fact that Quebec is a two-party battleground between Libs and the Bloc.

I think the Liberals will form a majority in parliament for two reasons. First, the country's political cycle is oriented so that it has a leftward swing around now. Secondly, the opposing Conservatives are loosing ground. Remember how Steve Harper was not able to pass a vote of no confidence a few months back? That was because he lacked support even within his own party.

I think the Liberals will form a majority in parliament for two reasons. First, the country's political cycle is oriented so that it has a leftward swing around now. Secondly, the opposing Conservatives are loosing ground. Remember how Steve Harper was not able to pass a vote of no confidence a few months back? That was because he lacked support even within his own party.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. It's very difficult(albeit not totally impossible) for a majority government to be formed without at least some kind of support in Quebec. And let's face it, we've been very disapointed, nay, pissed by the Liberals. I foresee very few Liberal MPs elected in Quebec, and that will make having a majority very unlikely.

And even if they did manage to have majority, they would have a very tough time keeping Canada whole. Quebec is tired of the Liberal Government's arrogance, and of their corruption.

GO:

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca/images/logo_liberal.gif

And even if they did manage to have majority, they would have a very tough time keeping Canada whole. Quebec is tired of the Liberal Government's arrogance, and of their corruption.
It would be even tougher keeping Canada whole if a Conservative government was elected.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. It's very difficult(albeit not totally impossible) for a majority government to be formed without at least some kind of support in Quebec. And let's face it, we've been very disapointed, nay, pissed by the Liberals. I foresee very few Liberal MPs elected in Quebec, and that will make having a majority very unlikely.

And even if they did manage to have majority, they would have a very tough time keeping Canada whole. Quebec is tired of the Liberal Government's arrogance, and of their corruption.
Is Canada really that worried that it may loose Quebec?

If I were Canadian, I'm American, I'd vote Libertarian.Libertarian party of Canada (http://www.libertarian.ca) For all of you progressive- conservative(moderate) Canadians, here is a party for you, so that you aren't left out in the cold. progressive canadian (http://www.progressivecanadian.org)

It would be even tougher keeping Canada whole if a Conservative government was elected.

Yes, but not if an NDP government was elected. Remember the Bloc and NDP are pretty much alike, the only big difference is the question of Quebec's independance.

Is Canada really that worried that it may loose Quebec?

Yes, yes it is.

Please bear in mind Quebec represents roughly 25% of Canada's population and is a VERY important source of natural resources.

We've forgotten one thing. The Liberals would be stupid to hold an election in the middle of winter-- trust me, extreme temperatures DO have a huge impact on how the vote goes. Count on the election being a month or two later.
I hope you are right. If the election was in Febuary, like everyone thinks it will, it would be days before my 18th birthday.

How do you think a winter election would affect the results?




I would like Equus and Dobbsworld to be correct in their predictions. The Liberals will win another minority, with a NDP coalition.

Idealy, I would like an NDP majority with a Bloc opposition. However, that would not happen unless someone rigged the election.

i vote green party, infact the last election was the first year the party got funding.

I would like Equus and Dobbsworld to be correct in their predictions. I would like an NDP majority with a Bloc opposition. However, that would not happen unless someone rigged the election.

Neither Dobbsworld nor I predicted that. We wished for the NDP to form government. We predicted another Liberal minority.

Neither Dobbsworld nor I predicted that. We wished for the NDP to form government. We predicted another Liberal minority.
I know you did not say that, I'll word what I said better. I do agree that the Libs will win a minority, and wish for an NDP govt.

Is it better now?

Yuppers. :)

Didn't mean to come down hard, but I know my dream of an NDP gov't is very unlikely. Most Liberal voters either wouldn't vote NDP because of ideology or vote Liberal because they're afraid of splitting the vote and letting the Conservatives in.

Is Canada really that worried that it may loose Quebec?

In a word, no! Quebec likes to scream and whine and bitch about every 30 or so odd years, then they shut up for a while. Besides, they can't separate, the SCOC has already ruled that the vote would have to take place in all of Canada, not just Quebec. They'll never separate.

Oh and yes, I agree that the Liberals will form the next majority government.

It would be even tougher keeping Canada whole if a Conservative government was elected.
What Conservative political positions are especially repugnant to the Bloc?

If Paul Martin can prove he is not a lier and actually holds an election after the Gomery Report comes out about the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal in Quebec, well, then we'll have another election. Here are the wonderful choices:

Liberal Party (currently are government, although in a minority, have made a coalition with the New Democratic Party): Have moved more towards the right since Martin took over from Chretien, have some solid cabinet members such as Ralph Goodale or Anne McLellan but otherwise, a rather umimpressive government. Brought in the hated gun registry, although they did officially legalise same-sex marriage and have maintained a surplus(only G8 Nation to have one). Been in power since 1993.

Conservative Party (members of Alliance/Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party unified 2003-2004, currently opposition): This party is the right wing party, very focused on social conservatism. Are in the midst of inner turmoil and may toss leader Stephen Harper for Peter McKay, a choice that could move the party more towards the centre and relevance with more Canadians (I am a member of this party, although I come from the Progressive Conservative side, not the stupid Reform side).

Bloc Quebecois (are a Quebec Seperatist party and as such, only run MPs in Quebec): This party has taken a huge lead in Quebec because of the Sponsorship Scandal and are tied in with the provinicial Parti Quebecois, who have tried to seperate Quebec from Canada twice. The Bloc made a coalition with the Conservatives last spring to bring down the Liberals but failed. Ideology wise, they are very socialist, infact their leader was a former Communist Party member.

New Democrats (in a coalition with the Liberals): This is Canada's main socialist party. Their popularity usually hangs around 18-20% of voters, and their main support is urban, as they are social activists as well as fiscal socialists. Leader Jack Layton, in the last election, accused the Prime Minister of "killing homeless people" by not doing more to help the homeless in Canada but in particular, Toronto. Layton is an super socialist, who sadly, sympathizes with Marc Emery, leader of the Marijuana Party, who made anti-semitic comments about Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice, this summer (Emery is facing deportation to the US as part of the Americans war on drugs, Layton opposes his deportation).

Green Party (have no seats, atlhoguh about 5-6% of voter support): This party is, of course, focused with the environment, although Leader Jim Harris describes the party as fiscally conservative. If some of their views on the environment weren't so extreme, they would gain far more support with Liberals. The only other party I could see myself voting for.

Christian Heritage Party (have no seats): This is a right-wing, biggot party thats only goal is make homosexuals change their "perverted ways" and become hetrosexual.

Marijuana Party (have no seats): The name says it all, although losing Marc Emery would hurt their cause.

The Liberals will likely form another minority government after the election, as they have lost most of their support on the Praries and in Quebec.
He will hold an election, because he's not a liar. Frankly, he has no reason not to either way the Gomery Report goes. The election isn't about electing him, but about the party. If he is implicated in the Report, he would call an election, step down and there would be a party leadership scramble. He has no choice --this is Canada, not Alberta.

I would vote Liberal in the next election. I might consider voting Conservative or NDP if their leadership changed. But if the Liberals also put in a leader I could not stand, I would vote for the Green Party.

Idealy, I would like an NDP majority with a Bloc opposition. However, that would not happen unless someone rigged the election.

Then what are we waiting for?

Let's rig that election, baby! :p

In a word, no! Quebec likes to scream and whine and bitch about every 30 or so odd years, then they shut up for a while. Besides, they can't separate, the SCOC has already ruled that the vote would have to take place in all of Canada, not just Quebec. They'll never separate.


I'm afraid you're very wrong on that, Steph. Should a referendum be won by the separatism faction, it's very likely Quebec will end up separated from Canada. It'll take a long, arduous judicial battle, involving U.N. and other countries' recognition of the new country of Quebec, but it would happen.

Now let's think about how we can be convinced to stop "screaming and whining and bitching", as you so respectfully worded it.

Perhaps with a less corrupted, less arrogant, less centralizing federal government, maybe? I would think Jack's the man for this.

What Conservative political positions are especially repugnant to the Bloc?
Pretty much everything:

-Gay marriage
-Abortion
-Death penalty
-Gender equality
-Fiscal austerity
-Privatised healthcare
-Less tax for the rich and the corporations
-Refusal to recognize Quebec is different from the rest of Canada
-etc.

Neither Dobbsworld nor I predicted that. We wished for the NDP to form government. We predicted another Liberal minority.
Sorry to say, I believe the Grits'll gain a marginally-majority government this time out, the sort of majority that could become a minority with two or three byelection losses. Still enough for them go back to acting like prats, or more likely, slightly more cautious prats than in the heady Chretien era.

Sorry to say, I believe the Grits'll gain a marginally-majority government this time out, the sort of majority that could become a minority with two or three byelection losses. Still enough for them go back to acting like prats, or more likely, slightly more cautious prats than in the heady Chretien era.

Let us hope you're wrong and they need the NDP's support to gain their majority.

We really can't afford to give the liberals another majority: they're already arrogant enough as it is. Sometimes they act as if Canada belonged to them. Let us prove them they're wrong.

Pretty much everything:

-Gay marriage
-Abortion
-Death penalty
-Gender equality
-Fiscal austerity
-Privatised healthcare
-Less tax for the rich and the corporations
-Refusal to recognize Quebec is different from the rest of Canada
-etc.
Don't forget throwing a lot of cash at the military and signing on to whatever missile treaty documents are thrust under the PMs' nose by our security-crazy neighbours. Those also don't play too well in Quebec.

Don't forget throwing a lot of cash at the military and signing on to whatever missile treaty documents are thrust under the PMs' nose by our security-crazy neighbours. Those also don't play too well in Quebec.

True, I forgot about the part about the military.

And "playing not too well in quebec" is an understatement. They had overall less votes than the green party in Quebec. This province just isn't stupid enough to vote for someone who wants to dig up the legality of abortion or bring back the death penalty.

At least back in the days of the progressive-conservative party, they used to get 2 or 3 MPs elected. I disagreed with the progressive-conservatives, but at least I had some sort of intellectual respect for them. With Stephen Harper's new neocon fundies conservatives, I can't even pretend respect anymore.

Let us hope you're wrong and they need the NDP's support to gain their majority.

We really can't afford to give the liberals another majority: they're already arrogant enough as it is. Sometimes they act as if Canada belonged to them. Let us prove them they're wrong.
Well... I guess what I'd really like to see is for all the people who've been conned into voting 'strategically' for the Liberals these last ten years or so, when they really wanted to vote their conscience and support the NDP finally get their chance to do so.

But y'know, party politics aside, I think it's a damn shame there is no longer a proper voice for the quintessentially 'Red Tories' of the old Progressive Conservative party. The implosion of that party post-Mulroney has left a hard vacuum the Reform/Alliance has yet to fill, even after re-branding themselves "Conservative".

It's also getting to be quite exasperating to see the Bloc continue to exist. If the people of Quebec want to feel they have little to no impact in Canada on a Federal level, re-electing the Bloc time and again makes it rather a self-fulfilling prophecy. The trouble with the Bloc is the same as the trouble with the provincial Parti Quebecois - it is ruthlessly populist, chameleonic, and utterly self-interested - it may position itself as being semi-socialistic, and perhaps it could find things in common with the federal NDP - but let us not forget it was born of disenfranchisement from within the ranks of the old Tory party. Tomorrow Gilles Duceppe could just as easily argue in favour of oh... say, making abortions illegal again - if that were the prevailing political wind in Quebec. That's not the kind of political left-wing I think we need, as it's neither really left-wing nor really political at that point. It's just being a mouthpiece and collecting a paycheque.

At least back in the days of the progressive-conservative party, they used to get 2 or 3 MPs elected. I disagreed with the progressive-conservatives, but at least I had some sort of intellectual respect for them. With Stephen Harper's new neocon fundies conservatives, I can't even pretend respect anymore.
2 or 3? Wow, talk about understatement - ! Mulroney bought votes in Quebec to such an extent that the Tories were under some scrutiny for the thousands of "instant-Tories" that his leadership bid was a certainty. The entire Bloc is the former Quebec wing of the old PC caucus with a bit of window-dressing added. That's why the new "Conservatives" haven't got a hope in Hell of forming the next government.

The Bloc is comprised primarily of former Red Tories, peppered with Quebec Populists. The Reform/Alliance/New Conservatives is made up primarily of all the people who used to embarrass the Hell out of the old Tory party with their uptight prudery and parochial outlook. The Tories were the glue that held the two together through compromise. Now our political right-wing has gone completely bipolar.

It's also getting to be quite exasperating to see the Bloc continue to exist. If the people of Quebec want to feel they have little to no impact in Canada on a Federal level, re-electing the Bloc time and again makes it rather a self-fulfilling prophecy. The trouble with the Bloc is the same as the trouble with the provincial Parti Quebecois - it is ruthlessly populist, chameleonic, and utterly self-interested - it may position itself as being semi-socialistic, and perhaps it could find things in common with the federal NDP - but let us not forget it was born of disenfranchisement from within the ranks of the old Tory party. Tomorrow Gilles Duceppe could just as easily argue in favour of oh... say, making abortions illegal again - if that were the prevailing political wind in Quebec. That's not the kind of political left-wing I think we need, as it's neither really left-wing nor really political at that point. It's just being a mouthpiece and collecting a paycheque.

And at the same time it's the only "serious" alternative to the liberals in Quebec, since it's essentially a two-party system here. I know a lot of people who aren't necessarily "let's separate or die trying", and yet they vote for the bloc over and over. Why? Because otherwise they vote would be wasted, it would divide the votes for the left and let the damn Libs get in yet again.

We're fucking tired of the liberals. They're arrogant, condescending, corrupt and act as if the country was their own to toy with. And yet, we don't want a change for the worse, so the conservatives are out. What are we left with? The Bloc, because the NDP doesn't have any structure in quebec, and has fuck-all chances of electing a single MP until that changes.

Oh, just so you know, I vote according to my conscience, so I gave the NDP my support. I can't wait for the election system's reform so my vote can actually count.

2 or 3? Wow, talk about understatement - ! Mulroney bought votes in Quebec to such an extent that the Tories were under some scrutiny for the thousands of "instant-Tories" that his leadership bid was a certainty. The entire Bloc is the former Quebec wing of the old PC caucus with a bit of window-dressing added. That's why the new "Conservatives" haven't got a hope in Hell of forming the next government.


My two or three comment was meant to be about the post-Mulroney era.

As for the rest, you're perfectly right.

Yes, yes it is.

Please bear in mind Quebec represents roughly 25% of Canada's population and is a VERY important source of natural resources.
Not to mention, it produces the best hockey players in the world :D

You can count on electoral reforms taking a back-burner in the event of another Liberal majority, though if it's a really tight majority it might muddle its' way through.

I do know from personal exchanges that Jack is just the guy to push those reforms through - if only 'cause he'd be going into the PMO (or pushing the PM's buttons via remote control in a minority gov) knowing full well he'd only have the one mandate to do it in; no way in Hell would I expect back-to-back NDP or NDP/Lib govs. That's just wishful thinking. ;)

2 or 3? Wow, talk about understatement - ! Mulroney bought votes in Quebec to such an extent that the Tories were under some scrutiny for the thousands of "instant-Tories" that his leadership bid was a certainty. The entire Bloc is the former Quebec wing of the old PC caucus with a bit of window-dressing added. That's why the new "Conservatives" haven't got a hope in Hell of forming the next government.
Did you hear about Mulroney's comments about past PMs? He thinks he's the best PM since Sir John A. McDonald.

My two or three comment was meant to be about the post-Mulroney era.

As for the rest, you're perfectly right.
I grew up in Quebec - I still think of it as my home province. Actually, I'm working on a five-year plan to return there and live in Lanaudiere.

I grew up in Quebec - I still think of it as my home province. Actually, I'm working on a five-year plan to return there and live in Lanaudiere.
Quebec is great... depending on wherein.

Did you hear about Mulroney's comments about past PMs? He thinks he's the best PM since Sir John A. McDonald.
Yeah, well it's not too hard to surmount a perpetually-drunken Scotsman, but I can think of five or six PMs offhand who easily surmount an perpetually-immodest Irishman.

Canada has a government and elections? I thought it was just a frozen tundra, home to polar bears and the like. :confused:
Well, yeah, but somebody has to make sure we have enough gas drilled so that we can keep our snowmobiles filled..

Nothing like running out of gas with a polar bear on your behind.

I'll probably be voting Green again, myself. I'm very happy to think that my vote enabled the Green party to get some real funding so that they might be able to credibly gain a seat.

Yes, yes it is.

Please bear in mind Quebec represents roughly 25% of Canada's population and is a VERY important source of natural resources.
I know how important it is. A few years back, Quebec built a series of very large dams, and it is still building them. It doesn't need the power, but it is highly lucrative to sell it to New York State, where I live. However, I'm sure that if there ever is a separation, there should be a free trade agreement of some sort.
Also, from what I've heard, if Quebec goes, then much of Canada will dissolve. Does that have any truth to it?

Liberals of course.

My fellow Canadians tend to have ADD when it comes to politics. They forgot things like the AdScam, Gomery, Gun Registry, bad healthcare (it's not free if you pay via taxes) and sheltering terrorists.

Of course, it will come down to the Ontario battlefield. The place where people support gun central hubs and not allowing it's citizens to have self-defence. There is also the NDP that wishes to ban private healthcare, thus telling Canadians that your money should belong to the government.

Canada City']Liberals of course.

My fellow Canadians tend to have ADD when it comes to politics. They forgot things like the AdScam, Gomery, Gun Registry, bad healthcare (it's not free if you pay via taxes) and sheltering terrorists.
"AdScam" (who came up with that name, btw - Sun Media?) and the Gomery Inquiry are intrinsically linked... one wonders why you've referred to the same scandal twice.

The Gun Registry is only an issue for the western provinces. And an increasingly creaky & old issue at that.

"Bad Healthcare"? And I suppose a two-tiered system will be the magic spell to fix everything? Or just a way for doctors to further pad their wallets while holding rural populations to ransom? Wait - y'know what? I know all about your bone-picking over healthcare. Holster your inevitable response, I'm completely uninterested, due to (see below)

The last complaint just goes to prove once again, and serves to underscore and punctuate the fact that "Canada City" is not a Canadian by any stretch of the imagination, just another Bush Republican with an axe to grind.

Try again when you figure out a more subtle approach. Yankee.

Yeah, well it's not too hard to surmount a perpetually-drunken Scotsman, but I can think of five or six PMs offhand who easily surmount an perpetually-immodest Irishman.

I can think of about 19 or 20

But I'm voting NDP, even though they are too far right for me

I can think of about 19 or 20

But I'm voting NDP, even though they are too far right for me
You live in the wrong country, then.

I can think of about 19 or 20

But I'm voting NDP, even though they are too far right for me
What, no CPC or CPC-ML candidates in your riding? You can usually count on someone local stepping up to bat for either of the two Commie parties.

The Gun Registry is only an issue for the western provinces. And an increasingly creaky & old issue at that.


Riight...so all those millions of dollars spent you don't mind being thrown away over a program that didn't help crime one bit?

But hell, why not continue bashing the liberals? How about the recent Dingwall scandel where Mr Dingwall charged myself and other canadians 800 grand for meals to even packs of gum.

Now he is going to resign and the liberal government wants to give him a severance pay (using our money, once again).

The worst part is? I'm living in a provinces that doesn't mind getting violated via anal route by the government that keeps putting these corrupted liberals in power.

Source to Severance Pay (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051004/qp_dingwall_051004/20051004?hub=TopStories)


Dingwall announced his resignation Wednesday following the release of documents revealing that he and his top aides racked up office expenses of more than $747,000 in 2004 for everything from travel expenses to a pack of gum.


Source (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050929/dingwall_severance_050929/20050930?hub=Canada)

Canada City']The worst part is? I'm living in a provience that doesn't mind getting violated via anal route by the government that keeps putting these corrupted liberals in power.

In Soviet Canada, government elects you!

No.

What?

Now, I'm not Canadian, but even when I don't watch the news, I can tell that the Canadian healthcare system needs a miracle to fix. I live in Rochester, NY, which is a small city across the lake from Toronto, and I can't tell you how many Canadians come to our hospitals for treatment. Furthermore, I have family in Buffalo, literally across the bridge from Canada. It seems like every other person there is a doctor from Canada, lured by higher pay. It's not like it's bad for business down where I live, but it suggests to me that things are bad up there.

What, no CPC or CPC-ML candidates in your riding? You can usually count on someone local stepping up to bat for either of the two Commie parties.
Well on the CPC website they are telling all their supporters to vote for the NDP instead of them.

In Soviet Canada, government elects you!

No.

What?
Thats the Canada I want to live in.

Well on the CPC website they are telling all their supporters to vote for the NDP instead of them.


Which, at least until our elections system is reformed, is pretty much all you can do if you don't want your vote to go to waste.

Which, at least until our elections system is reformed, is pretty much all you can do if you don't want your vote to go to waste.
How would you have the electoral system reformed?

How would you have the electoral system reformed?

Better representation according to the total sufferage received. It's just plain stupid for the green party to get 1 out of 20 Canadians voting for them, yet having no MP in the parliament.

Better representation according to the total sufferage received. It's just plain stupid for the green party to get 1 out of 20 Canadians voting for them, yet having no MP in the parliament.
That's around 650,000 voters?

That's around 650,000 voters?

More like 1.5 millions.

Yup, there are 30 millions of us canucks. :D

More like 1.5 millions.

Yup, there are 30 millions of us canucks. :D
Only around 13 million vote though...

Only around 13 million vote though...

Hmmm....

I forgot to take into account voter turnout, you're right.

We had... what, 65-70% last elections? That'd be more than 13 millions.

Hmmm....

I forgot to take into account voter turnout, you're right.

We had... what, 65-70% last elections? That'd be more than 13 millions.
Around there.

Around there.

Uh, 66%(2/3) of 30 millions is more along the lines of 20 millions. And one out of 20 of 20M is one million.

Anyway, enough maths for now. :rolleyes:

How would you have the electoral system reformed?
I think we oughtta have a Senate reformed along the following lines:

Establish a 100-seat Senate, with each seat appointed by individual party leaders according to the percentage breakdown of popular support amongst the electorate. It's an easy proposition:

Say a given election result nets 35% of the popular vote for the Liberals, 25% Conservative, 20% NDP, 15% BQ, 4% Greens, and 1% Marijuana party.

You'd have 35 Liberal Senators appointed by the Liberal party.
25 Tory Senators similarly appointed by their party leader.
20 NDPers
15 Bloc-heads
4 Greens
and one Pothead in the Senate.

No more sleepytime chamber. No more absentee Senators. A new chance for turnover and politcal growth in what should remain as dynamic a Parliament as possible.

I think we oughtta have a Senate reformed along the following lines:

Establish a 100-seat Senate, with each seat appointed by individual party leaders according to the percentage breakdown of popular support amongst the electorate. It's an easy proposition:

Say a given election result nets 35% of the popular vote for the Liberals, 25% Conservative, 20% NDP, 15% BQ, 4% Greens, and 1% Marijuana party.

You'd have 35 Liberal Senators appointed by the Liberal party.
25 Tory Senators similarly appointed by their party leader.
20 NDPers
15 Bloc-heads
4 Greens
and one Pothead in the Senate.

No more sleepytime chamber. No more absentee Senators. A new chance for turnover and politcal growth in what should remain as dynamic a Parliament as possible.

While there are many senators who are a waste of skin, there are a few who churn out some pretty good recommendations. I wish parliament would follow up on some of those reports.

While there are many senators who are a waste of skin, there are a few who churn out some pretty good recommendations. I wish parliament would follow up on some of those reports.
Not nearly enough to warrant keeping it unchanged. Hell, Ed Broadbent wants to abolish it outright and convert the chamber to a gymnasium.

Not nearly enough to warrant keeping it unchanged. Hell, Ed Broadbent wants to abolish it outright and convert the chamber to a gymnasium.

Yeah, abolishing the senate is one of the NDP policies I don't agree with. I'm open to a little reform though. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you know what I mean.

I think we oughtta have a Senate reformed along the following lines:

Establish a 100-seat Senate, with each seat appointed by individual party leaders according to the percentage breakdown of popular support amongst the electorate. It's an easy proposition:

Say a given election result nets 35% of the popular vote for the Liberals, 25% Conservative, 20% NDP, 15% BQ, 4% Greens, and 1% Marijuana party.

You'd have 35 Liberal Senators appointed by the Liberal party.
25 Tory Senators similarly appointed by their party leader.
20 NDPers
15 Bloc-heads
4 Greens
and one Pothead in the Senate.

No more sleepytime chamber. No more absentee Senators. A new chance for turnover and politcal growth in what should remain as dynamic a Parliament as possible.
I would agree with those changes. Having a Marijuana Senator would be kinda weird. The Tories may see it as a wake-up call.

The last complaint just goes to prove once again, and serves to underscore and punctuate the fact that "Canada City" is not a Canadian by any stretch of the imagination, just another Bush Republican with an axe to grind.

Try again when you figure out a more subtle approach. Yankee.
I think you are right there Dobbs. Although he claims his mom is from Poland, his dad is from Armenia, that he was born in Quebec and that they moved to Ontario while he was young, he often used to refer to Canada and Canadians in the 3rd person.

I called him on that quite awhile ago and he seems to have improved and at least moved to the first person when referring to Canada and Canadians.

However, I do think you are right and that he is anything but a Canadian.

How would you have the electoral system reformed?

Obviously Condorcet voting would be ideal, but most people think it's too much of a shift for the electorate to really work with. In addition, Condorcet voting has some difficulties when trying to deal with districting and party systems.

My system, which I like to call the double-percentage system, attempts to address both of these issues.

First, there is no change on the behavior of the voter. The voter comes in, chooses the candidate they are most in agreement with (whether that's by party-line or by specific candidate is unimportant, as we'll see) and places their mark by that candidate.

Once all votes are in, they are tabulated by party-line, with the seats in parliament awarded by the percentage of the total votes each party gets across the nation. Partial seats are rounded up. When that is complete, each riding is evaluated and then the allotted seats are awarded according to which candidate had the highest percentage of votes in their particular riding in descending order. When the party has used up its allotment of seats, the remainder of its candidates are discarded from the seat assignment, and the list of the remaining ridings reordered according to highest percentages remaining in the riding.

When all the seats have been assigned, that's it.. (so any that might have a seat through rounding are left out, they didn't achieve enough support in their riding to qualify for a seat, even though they may have nationally)

This means that ridings that particularly favor a candidate are likely to receive that candidate in government, while ridings that display no solid preference will have an MP that better represents the national character.

Side benefits include no early calling of the election, a better chance for independants that receive some support in their community - even if it is dominated by one party or another, and making gerry-mandering nearly impossible.

Haven't heard of Concordet voting before seeing it mentioned by the previous poster. Hey, if it adds new voices and generates greater representation of existing political voices, I'll take it however we can get it.

Above all else, whatever electoral changes occur, those changes must be as straightforward, as clear, and as simple as possible. Politics need a good dose of de-mystification, and should be constrained to the utmost transparency whenever and wherever possible.

Hah.. probably because I'm an idiot and typo'd.

It's actually Condorcet. Corrected now. Thanks for the polite point-out.

Who will Canada pick in the next election?.A rich Lawyer ...MP for/from Quebec. :D

same ol ...same ol...

Who will Canada pick in the next election?..and the next after that...A rich Lawyer ...MP for/from Quebec. :D

same ol ...same ol...

Not likely, Ocean Drive. More likely a rich businessman MP from Ontario.


Paul Martin was born and raised in Windsor and Ottawa.

Stephen Harper was born in Toronto, Ontario before moving to Calgary to attend university.

Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are the only prime ministerial candidates born and raised in Quebec. But I don't think anyone seriously believes either of them will win an election, as much as some of us wish Jack could.

Just for fun: political credentials

Paul Martin:

Martin graduated with a B.A. in history and philosophy from St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, in 1961. He followed his father's path to the University of Toronto Law School where he received his LL.B. in 1965. He was called to the Ontario bar in 1966.

Before entering politics, Martin had a long career in the private sector. He served as vice-president, president, chairman, CEO, or corporate director for at least 6 large companies, including Canadian Steamship Lines. By 1988, he was a successful businessman and a multi-millionaire. His declaration of assets upon entering Parliament included ownership of dozens of companies around the world, thirty-three ships, office buildings, apartment blocks and movie theatres. In 2004 Forbes.com estimated Martin's personal wealth at $225,000,000 (USD). His steamship company, Canada Steamship Lines, is known to have flown foreign flags rather than the Canadian flag to escape Canadian taxes and Canadian environmental laws.

Served as finance minister before orchestrating the ouster of Jean Chretian. During this tenure, Martin erased a $42 billion deficit, recorded five consecutive budget surpluses, paid down $36 billion in debt, and cut taxes cumulatively by $100 billion over 5 years,

Stephen Harper:

As a teenager, Harper belonged to the Young Liberals Club, but his allegiances later changed. Obviously. He attended Richview Collegiate Institute before working in the oil and gas industry in Alberta in his early twenties. He attended the University of Calgary, receiving a Masters degree in economics where he still occasionally lectures.

In 1985 he was an aide to a Tory MP, but quit in 1986, claiming disillusionment with the Progressive Conservatives. He joined the Reform Party and is credited with creating their 1988 platform. Won a seat as MP for Calgary in 1993, and was one of the few Reformers to vote for the Gun Registry. Citing concerns about the social conservatism of the Reform Party, Harper left his seat and the party before the 1997 election to serve as vice-president, then as president, of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a conservative think-tank and lobby group.

After the Canadian Alliance (first coalition of Reform and the PCs) did poorly in the 2002 election, Harper penned the infamous "Alberta Agenda" firewall letter. This was seen as encouragement for Albertan separation by some of his detractors.

After the 2002 election, Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance and leader of the Opposition. He again tried to unite the right, creating today's Conservative Party.

Jack Layton:

Layton grew up in Hudson, Québec, and studied at McGill and York Universities; he holds a Ph.D. in political science from York, and has taught at all three universities of Toronto, Ontario.

Jack Layton has been an activist for over 30 years in a variety of causes and has written several books, including Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis and, more recently, a book on general public policy, Speaking Out. He was first elected to Toronto City Council in 1982, was deputy mayor, and ran unsuccessfully for the position of Mayor of Toronto in 1991. After returning to academia and operating an environmental consulting business, he returned to city council in 1994 and led the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as president for a term before running and winning the leadership of the federal NDP in 2003.

On June 28, 2004, he was elected Member of Parliament for the constituency of Toronto—Danforth and is credited with forcing Martin's hand to create an "NDP budget" that earmarked an additional $4.6 billion to underfunded social issues, such as affordable housing, public transit, post secondary education, and foreign aid.

On March 21, 2005, Layton was sworn into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

Gilles Duceppe:

Duceppe is a native of Montreal, Québec. He studied political science at the Université de Montréal. In his youth, he advocated communism, and was a card-carrying member of the Worker's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). Duceppe later said his three-year membership in the W.C.P. (M.L.) was a mistake brought on by a search for fundamental change [1]. He later became a trade union negotiator.

Duceppe first became an MP in 1990 during a byelection and soon became Leader of the Opposition, although he lost that status during 1997's general election.

He is currently the longest serving leader of a major federal party.