The Election (no, the Other One)

Remove all ads!

Actually they just start Christmas holiday early and see which leader gets the most coal in his stocking...

Yes, it was a typo. If the opposition won't let him cut questionable spending, then that deficit will baloon out of control--and the opposition will pounce on that next election!

Could that money not be defered until election time when the economy goes to ****? Even that way, the parties still get their subsidy but the money doesn't just sit in an account until the next election.

That's the idea, but apparently the Liberals and NDP don't like that...

Exactly what scares me about the Liberals. If the Liberals would stand up to the Conservatives in a meaningful way, and not some joke of a coalition that will guarantee conservative majorities for the next decade, then maybe Harper would listen. And they have to have something realistic to propose so that Harper can take them seriously.

The problem is that the Canadian people lack sufficient confidence in Harper or the Conservatives to give them a majority, but the opposition is just so far out in left field that the Conservatives can't reconcile what they want with the Conservative platform.

 

I’ve been through all this “sitting in an account” nonsense already, so I won’t bother addressing it again. But no, the idea of an annual expenditure is that it's spent annually to cover the costs associated with the program (in this case, maintaining a political party). Really, Gnarfflinger, your inability to grasp basic economic principles is quite astounding.

Other than that, there's not much about Gnarfflinger's post that I can disagree with (or agree with, for that matter).

 

I just don't see the parties spending all that money when tehre isn't an election in progress. The Conservatives got just over a third of the popular vote. That could be as much as 10 million each year. What could they spend all that money on every year when there is no election? Maybe spending on that scale is just a little too mindboggling...

 

This sounds like a soap opera. Or maybe "Survivor".

Will Dion be able to stay friends with Layton and Duceppe long enough to eliminate Harper as a threat?

Will Harper be able to sell his efforts to undermine his enemies' financial stability? Can he overcome his personality deficits and make any friends with any of the other players?

Will Elizabeth May attempt to garner a Senate seat? Would Dion be so unbelieveably stupid as to giver her one? If she gets one, will anyone really care? Can her party eke out a Commons seat in a possible February election?

Will Dion stay or leave? Will Michael Ignatieff stab his present boss in the back and dump his body in the St. Laurence river to 'sleep with the fishes'? Would Bob Rae be a better choice for Liberal leader than Ignatieff? Or would that alienate the Ontario voters? Will Chretien come out of the woodwork and support someone -- anyone? And if he did, will anyone really care? What'll the voter turnout look like in a February election?

Will Governor General Jean's possible cooperation with the possible coalition possibly lead to Canadians possibly hating her more than they do already? Does ANYONE like this woman -- possibly?

Questions, questions, my mind is awhirl with questions. This whole thing is gonna totally eff with my Christmas.

 

It looks like Ignateuf is the interim Liberal leader until a May convention. If Bob Rae becomes Liberal leader, Harper gets his majority. Ontario still remembers Rae's horrible job as Premier when we elected the NDP in 1990. With Rae at the helm, they will lose a lot of seats in Ontario, they will lose some seats in Quebec because Rae is Anglophone. If Rae leads the Liberals, then Harper gets a Majority and Duceppe leads the opposition. Even the NDP might eclipse the Liberals...

 

Some people are saying it doesn't make a lot of sense to make someone an interim leader when that person is running for the formal leadership; I tend to agree with that, since it gives that person a big advantage.

As for Rae leading the Liberals, I seem to recall that he wasn't too popular in Ontario; obviously Gnarff knows better than I do given that he lives there. If that's the case, then I tend to agree with him - they'll lose seats in Ontario, and won't likely make up the losses in the West. Of course, Ignatieff seems to have the most support for now, so it may be a non-issue.

---------- Added 2 hours, 59 minutes and 27 seconds later... ----------

Well, I should have waited for a couple of hours before posting. Rae has backed out of the race, so Ignatieff is the next liberal Party leader. At least that's over with.

There's a clip on The Comedy Network by Jon Stewart on his take of the whole thing over the last couple of weeks. (It's also on The Daily Show site, but we can't get it in Canada.)

 

Does Ignatieff have the chops, leadership-wise, to lead the Liberals? Does Canada want him as their next PM?

I'm not sure. He seems to have a lot of academic credentials, and I value that. God knows he's written his fair share of books. As a western Conservative, of course, I reflexively reject his eastern-centric, shaft Alberta policies, but maybe he will be able to forge a coalition that represents more Canadians than the current Conservative regime. It'll be an uphill battle, though.

 

Iggy will be better than Dion, but I don't think that he has what it takes to return the Liberals in power.

 

Iggy Pop would be better than Dion.

But I too have my doubts about Ignatieff. It seems to me in the last leadership race he made some comments that were perhaps not the wisest thing to put forth from a political perspective. I don't recall specifically what they were, though.

The one this this will do is at least give the Liberals some stability so that they (in conjunction with the other opposition parties) pose a threat to the Conseervatives which in turn should help to keep Harper in line.

 

Harper is about to fill, what, is it 8 Senate seats? Maybe more. The opposition is howling -- some Liberal hack was saying "he has no moral authority to do this" or some such nonsense -- he has every legal right, and he has a helluva better mandate than your party, sweetheart -- his party GAINED seats in the last election, your party LOST seats. Who do think any thinking person perceives to have a better mandate to govern the country? Stupid LIberal hacks.

On the flip side, pissing off of opposition at this point is not exactly a bright move, either, Stevie-boy. You'd better come up with one sweet budget.

 

I don't think the opposition ever intended to work with the Conservatives. It doesn't matter what Harper puts in the budget, Iggy, Jack and Gilles will gang up on him. I just hope the GG calls an election instead of a coalition...

Harper has the obligation to fill the senate seats, and that's just what he's doing. I don't care for the appointed senate though...

 

He has the right, not an obligation.

Given that Harper was so keen on reducing government costs, senate appointments that will cost about $6 million/year seem rather hypocritical.

 

If Harper doesn't have to fill those senate seats, then why is the senate even necessary? If there is a need for a senate, then Harper should fill those seats...

 

It was Harper himself who was calling for Senate reform awhile back, precisely because he felt that the Senate as it exists now is ineffectual. Specifically, he wanted the Senators to be elected rather than appointed. So to now go and appoint 18 senators to an ineffectual body with an annual cost of $6 million when he is looking to cut costs is the height of hypocrisy.

This just further confirms my belief that Harper can't be trusted. Not that many politicians can be trusted, but Harper takes it to a new level.

 

The fact is that the Senate has NOT been reformed, though. Harper can't just act like it was while the other parties continue to treat it in the traditional fashion. If said other parties would cooperate with Senate reform, then great, but they haven't, so Harper is just doing what every other politicain has done for years -- appointing those he believes are the best fit for the Senate. He'd be a lousy politician if he just sat back and waited for his enemies to come in and let them have the advantage. If Senate Reform were up for a vote in the near future I might agree with you, Splunge, but the fact is that that topic is pretty far from everyone's mind.

BTW, Splunge, I was sure you were a lawyer too -- sorry, dude!

Anyhow, this isn't to say that Harper won't pay a political price for filling those seats, but in a legal sense and to a lesser degree a moral one, I don't think he's done anything wrong.

 

Actually, there was a Senate reform bill** before the House that died when the last election was called. And because Harper is the one who called it when there was no good reason to do so, in effect he is the one who isn’t cooperating, not the other parties.

** The reform bill was to limit terms to 8 years, but there was no provision for Senators to be elected.

No problem, LKD, but I'm an accountant. Just please don’t insult me like that again.

 

So until the senate is reformed, we're stuck with a system where the PM can stack teh senate with whoever he wants in there.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Harper's reason for calling the election early because there was too much bickering and infighting in the House of Commons? So he calls the election, increases his power and the other parties fight more?

 

He claims he called the election because he felt that the opposition parties were preventing the House from getting any work done, and therefore in effect the House had lost confidence in the government's ability to rule. But that's the nature of minority governments. Following his logic, any time an election results in a minority government, there should automatically be another election call, and another, and another, until there is finally a majority government.

No, the real reason he called an election was that the fixed date for the next election was October 2009, and he wanted to have an election (and hopefully get a majority) before the economy went into the tank and the voters blamed him for it.

 

So we have another minority government, and now they only seem interested in fighting amongst themselves when the economy is going into the tank. Prediction time: The Budget gets the thumbs down and we have an election late in March. At least then we get it over before the Playoffs start...

 

So anyone want to lay odds on the whole coalition thing? The only thing I know for certain is that if the opposition does band together to take government reins, the West will take that as a huge, Huge, HUGE, slap in the face. They'll never get another Liberal or NDP seat from Saskatchewan westward again.

On another note, why is the AoLS so dead?