|
I'm not really into Politics, I watch the debates and try to keep up with each parties general message and direction and vote from there. This past election, I voted for Harper since I thought he was doing an all right job; but more importantly since I hated the opposition. So imagine my surprise when I read the paper this morning and the front page news is detailing the Liberals, NDPs and Blocs new plan to form a coalition and overtake Harper's Conservative.
I read the paper dumbstruck and I can't wrap my head around how this is possible. We just had an election and elected Harper; he didn't win a majority, but he won. Now the other parties are getting together (parties with totally different views on how to run a country; their only common ground is that they lost to Harper) and plan to take oust Harper out and take power without an election. Apparently they can do this and it's happened before. (back in 1982 or '72 I believe) Yet, this is only allowed because it's a way for the other parties to oust a political leader if they feel hes running the country into the ground and something has to be done. IMO that's a gross exaggeration, since I thought he was doing a pretty good job.
From what I understood in the paper, Harper has some time to appeal to the Governor General and try to convince her to let this blow over during Christmas break; but isn't that delaying the inevitable. Maybe it's just me, but surely even Liberal, NDP and Quebecois supporters should feel that this isn't how a party attain political power, no? Am I this oblivious to how terrible a job Harper has been doing? Is there something I am missing that makes this whole situation not that bad? The only thing I could come up with is that this makes the opposition look very, very bad, and when next election rolls around, the Conservatives should get in no problem; but even that isn't much of a consolation.
So in short; I am sort of outraged at this whole situation. I don't pretend to understand the whole political system, (evidently, since I was unaware the other parties could do this) but this doesn't seem very Democratic and it's angered me that I have been actively looking around this morning for things I can do to support Harper and voice my opinion. So if anyone who knows more then I do can comment on my questions in the latter paragraph and/or maybe explain this situation better; much thanks!
 
|
|
|
Oh, thanks a lot I didn't see this. Like I said I only read about this morning.
Thanks a bunch.
|
Well thats why you make majority governments usually because then its harder other parties (mainly opposition parties) to overthrown government.
Wikipedia, For example, "Finland's proportional representation system encourages a multitude of political parties and has resulted in many coalition-cabinets. No single party has held the absolute majority of the parliament during the independence." There has been some minority governments but those go down quickly. At the moment there is 4 party government ruling and has about 120 seats out of 200.
And answer what "Harper's Conservative" should have done when they made government is to take other parties and make majority. Key word is compromises.
This is democratic indeed
|
k. explain to me something.
harper has 800 million dollars in surplus. he's not touching it. yet he takes 30 million dollars from the opposition parties' funding to "supposedly fix" the economy.
and this theft will automatically lead to the parties being bankrupt, thus getting rid of the opposition, thus making the conservatives the ONLY party able to rule Canada.
tell me he didn't just kick the opposition parties in the balls, ripped them off, and shoved them into a blender.
granted i am disappointed in the opposition parties' performances, but it doesn't beat the fact that harper just made the most cowardly move ever made by any party in Canadian history.
i need an explanation as to why people are still leaning towards the Tories?
and since we're on the topic of politics, i'm going to address another issue that has been itching my ass. a big number of non-liberal voters have voted non-liberal because they don't want Dion to take office. they think Dion can't lead properly etc. maybe that's true, but this is not american politics. you don't vote for one person. you vote for a party.
yes, maybe the leader of the party doesn't know jack shit, but it is the cabinet, the group that comes with a decision to do something.
ie: the fact that tories didn't come up with a stimulus package is the idea of flaherty, approved by harper. it is the group's teamwork that leads to a decision.
back to the point, when you vote, you vote for a party, you vote for a philosophy of the party, their goals, and mission. not the leader. who gives a flying shit if the leader "doesn't look like prime minister material" it's the fucking party that governs.
and the conservative's philosophy is to stay in power, get money for their own selfish purpose, not give a fuck about canada, and smash other parties in the balls.
anyways, back to the idea that Dion knows jack shit, that's a false claim. because he was an poli sci professor at the university of montreal. who better than a fucking university professor to fix up the current situation? tell me? harper? who fucking dropped out of UofT after two months? and fucking worked for Imperial Oil in the mail room?
|
On December 03 2008 23:39 Salv wrote:
I'm not really into Politics, I watch the debates and try to keep up with each parties general message and direction and vote from there. This past election, I voted for Harper since I thought he was doing an all right job; but more importantly since I hated the opposition. So imagine my surprise when I read the paper this morning and the front page news is detailing the Liberals, NDPs and Blocs new plan to form a coalition and overtake Harper's Conservative.
I read the paper dumbstruck and I can't wrap my head around how this is possible. We just had an election and elected Harper; he didn't win a majority, but he won. Now the other parties are getting together (parties with totally different views on how to run a country; their only common ground is that they lost to Harper) and plan to take oust Harper out and take power without an election. Apparently they can do this and it's happened before. (back in 1982 or '72 I believe) Yet, this is only allowed because it's a way for the other parties to oust a political leader if they feel hes running the country into the ground and something has to be done. IMO that's a gross exaggeration, since I thought he was doing a pretty good job.
From what I understood in the paper, Harper has some time to appeal to the Governor General and try to convince her to let this blow over during Christmas break; but isn't that delaying the inevitable. Maybe it's just me, but surely even Liberal, NDP and Quebecois supporters should feel that this isn't how a party attain political power, no? Am I this oblivious to how terrible a job Harper has been doing? Is there something I am missing that makes this whole situation not that bad? The only thing I could come up with is that this makes the opposition look very, very bad, and when next election rolls around, the Conservatives should get in no problem; but even that isn't much of a consolation.
So in short; I am sort of outraged at this whole situation. I don't pretend to understand the whole political system, (evidently, since I was unaware the other parties could do this) but this doesn't seem very Democratic and it's angered me that I have been actively looking around this morning for things I can do to support Harper and voice my opinion. So if anyone who knows more then I do can comment on my questions in the latter paragraph and/or maybe explain this situation better; much thanks!
First of all, congrats on having the intelligence to actually ask the question. Something it seems not many people are doing.
When we vote in a federal election, the country is divided in equal pockets of population called ridings. Each riding represents a seat in parliment. Whoever holds that seat - whether they be apart of the winning party or not - has certain responsibilities toward the people who elected them (such as voting against bills passed by opposing parties, for instance).
Once in a while we get a minority government. This means that one of the parties has won more of these seats than any other party; however, they have not won the majority of the total number of seats. What this implies is that the majority of the seats were won by ministers opposing the winning party. This system works to prevent a minority government (which does not represent the will of the majority) to force it's agenda too harshly on the majority. If it does, then the other parties - because they hold the majority, can pass a vote of non-confidence and overthrow the government.
When this happends, there can be two results. Usually an election is triggered and everything proceeds in normal fashion. In some cases, such as this one, because an election has been had so recently, a coalition can be formed by the opposition parties. Now this IS democratic because, collectively, the majority of the population voted for one of the three parties. Therefore, if they temporarily merge, then it's as if the majority of the population had voted for this new coalition party, which then has a right to form the government.
So you see, this system is not un-democratic. In fact, the opposite is true; it's sole intent is to preserve democracy and rule of the majority. In this case, harper is only calling it so because he doesn't want to lose power and he's being a big crybaby about it.
|
On December 04 2008 01:07 Cpt.Cocaine wrote:
In this case, harper is only calling it so because he doesn't want to lose power and he's being a big crybaby about it.
thank you good sir. well said.
|
On December 04 2008 01:07 Cpt.Cocaine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 23:39 Salv wrote:
I'm not really into Politics, I watch the debates and try to keep up with each parties general message and direction and vote from there. This past election, I voted for Harper since I thought he was doing an all right job; but more importantly since I hated the opposition. So imagine my surprise when I read the paper this morning and the front page news is detailing the Liberals, NDPs and Blocs new plan to form a coalition and overtake Harper's Conservative.
I read the paper dumbstruck and I can't wrap my head around how this is possible. We just had an election and elected Harper; he didn't win a majority, but he won. Now the other parties are getting together (parties with totally different views on how to run a country; their only common ground is that they lost to Harper) and plan to take oust Harper out and take power without an election. Apparently they can do this and it's happened before. (back in 1982 or '72 I believe) Yet, this is only allowed because it's a way for the other parties to oust a political leader if they feel hes running the country into the ground and something has to be done. IMO that's a gross exaggeration, since I thought he was doing a pretty good job.
From what I understood in the paper, Harper has some time to appeal to the Governor General and try to convince her to let this blow over during Christmas break; but isn't that delaying the inevitable. Maybe it's just me, but surely even Liberal, NDP and Quebecois supporters should feel that this isn't how a party attain political power, no? Am I this oblivious to how terrible a job Harper has been doing? Is there something I am missing that makes this whole situation not that bad? The only thing I could come up with is that this makes the opposition look very, very bad, and when next election rolls around, the Conservatives should get in no problem; but even that isn't much of a consolation.
So in short; I am sort of outraged at this whole situation. I don't pretend to understand the whole political system, (evidently, since I was unaware the other parties could do this) but this doesn't seem very Democratic and it's angered me that I have been actively looking around this morning for things I can do to support Harper and voice my opinion. So if anyone who knows more then I do can comment on my questions in the latter paragraph and/or maybe explain this situation better; much thanks! First of all, congrats on having the intelligence to actually ask the question. Something it seems not many people are doing. When we vote in a federal election, the country is divided in equal pockets of population called ridings. Each riding represents a seat in parliment. Whoever holds that seat - whether they be apart of the winning party or not - has certain responsibilities toward the people who elected them (such as voting against bills passed by opposing parties, for instance). Once in a while we get a minority government. This means that one of the parties has won more of these seats than any other party; however, they have not won the majority of the total number of seats. What this implies is that the majority of the seats were won by ministers opposing the winning party. This system works to prevent a minority government (which does not represent the will of the majority) to force it's agenda too harshly on the majority. If it does, then the other parties - because they hold the majority, can pass a vote of non-confidence and overthrow the government. When this happends, there can be two results. Usually an election is triggered and everything proceeds in normal fashion. In some cases, such as this one, because an election has been had so recently, a coalition can be formed by the opposition parties. Now this IS democratic because, collectively, the majority of the population voted for one of the three parties. Therefore, if they temporarily merge, then it's as if the majority of the population had voted for this new coalition party, which then has a right to form the government. So you see, this system is not un-democratic. In fact, the opposite is true; it's sole intent is to preserve democracy and rule of the majority. In this case, harper is only calling it so because he doesn't want to lose power and he's being a big crybaby about it.
Thanks for the reply, I am beginning to feel better about the whole situation.
I understand that the majority of the people voted for a party other then the Conservatives, but how can the Liberals, Quebecois and NDP get along? They all have vastly different agendas, no? It just doesn't seem like a proper fix, only the lesser of two evils.
|
Like Too_MuchZerg said, compromises. I have more faith in the leaders of the libs/npd/bloc's capacity to work together than harper's ability to work with them. At the same time it means that neither of the parties will get to fully push their agenda because everyone will have to agree with it. Coalition governments can be a good thing.
|
On December 04 2008 02:19 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2008 01:07 Cpt.Cocaine wrote:On December 03 2008 23:39 Salv wrote:
I'm not really into Politics, I watch the debates and try to keep up with each parties general message and direction and vote from there. This past election, I voted for Harper since I thought he was doing an all right job; but more importantly since I hated the opposition. So imagine my surprise when I read the paper this morning and the front page news is detailing the Liberals, NDPs and Blocs new plan to form a coalition and overtake Harper's Conservative.
I read the paper dumbstruck and I can't wrap my head around how this is possible. We just had an election and elected Harper; he didn't win a majority, but he won. Now the other parties are getting together (parties with totally different views on how to run a country; their only common ground is that they lost to Harper) and plan to take oust Harper out and take power without an election. Apparently they can do this and it's happened before. (back in 1982 or '72 I believe) Yet, this is only allowed because it's a way for the other parties to oust a political leader if they feel hes running the country into the ground and something has to be done. IMO that's a gross exaggeration, since I thought he was doing a pretty good job.
From what I understood in the paper, Harper has some time to appeal to the Governor General and try to convince her to let this blow over during Christmas break; but isn't that delaying the inevitable. Maybe it's just me, but surely even Liberal, NDP and Quebecois supporters should feel that this isn't how a party attain political power, no? Am I this oblivious to how terrible a job Harper has been doing? Is there something I am missing that makes this whole situation not that bad? The only thing I could come up with is that this makes the opposition look very, very bad, and when next election rolls around, the Conservatives should get in no problem; but even that isn't much of a consolation.
So in short; I am sort of outraged at this whole situation. I don't pretend to understand the whole political system, (evidently, since I was unaware the other parties could do this) but this doesn't seem very Democratic and it's angered me that I have been actively looking around this morning for things I can do to support Harper and voice my opinion. So if anyone who knows more then I do can comment on my questions in the latter paragraph and/or maybe explain this situation better; much thanks! First of all, congrats on having the intelligence to actually ask the question. Something it seems not many people are doing. When we vote in a federal election, the country is divided in equal pockets of population called ridings. Each riding represents a seat in parliment. Whoever holds that seat - whether they be apart of the winning party or not - has certain responsibilities toward the people who elected them (such as voting against bills passed by opposing parties, for instance). Once in a while we get a minority government. This means that one of the parties has won more of these seats than any other party; however, they have not won the majority of the total number of seats. What this implies is that the majority of the seats were won by ministers opposing the winning party. This system works to prevent a minority government (which does not represent the will of the majority) to force it's agenda too harshly on the majority. If it does, then the other parties - because they hold the majority, can pass a vote of non-confidence and overthrow the government. When this happends, there can be two results. Usually an election is triggered and everything proceeds in normal fashion. In some cases, such as this one, because an election has been had so recently, a coalition can be formed by the opposition parties. Now this IS democratic because, collectively, the majority of the population voted for one of the three parties. Therefore, if they temporarily merge, then it's as if the majority of the population had voted for this new coalition party, which then has a right to form the government. So you see, this system is not un-democratic. In fact, the opposite is true; it's sole intent is to preserve democracy and rule of the majority. In this case, harper is only calling it so because he doesn't want to lose power and he's being a big crybaby about it. Thanks for the reply, I am beginning to feel better about the whole situation. I understand that the majority of the people voted for a party other then the Conservatives, but how can the Liberals, Quebecois and NDP get along? They all have vastly different agendas, no? It just doesn't seem like a proper fix, only the lesser of two evils.
You basically now see the whole issue rounds down to and why people are so against it.
I don't think that the government would be as effective as we would like if it is a coalition government, but at the same time we don't end up with the other parties being severly reduced in their capacity to run in further elections due to lack of funding. Tricky slope and only time will tell if its a good one to be going down.
|
Its so strange to hear other countries internal politics, damn I'm provincial as hell...
|
harper has 800 million dollars in surplus. he's not touching it. yet he takes 30 million dollars from the opposition parties' funding to "supposedly fix" the economy.
and this theft will automatically lead to the parties being bankrupt, thus getting rid of the opposition, thus making the conservatives the ONLY party able to rule Canada.
tell me he didn't just kick the opposition parties in the balls, ripped them off, and shoved them into a blender.
The Conservatives are not rushing to give out stimulus package. First of all, with the economy slowing down, the tax base would decrease. Injecting mass loads of cash would definitely cause a deficit. Another thing, the conservatives said they will introduce these stimulus packages in their budget. The reason being is that they need to coordinate their economic strategy with the upcoming US president, Barack Obama. For example, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Canada to go ahead and loan the auto industry billions of dollars when the United States hasn't even made their decision yet.
About the party financing issue, a lot of people think its immoral for their tax dollars to fund a political party that they oppose, such as the Bloc. Just because their welfare cheque from the government gets cut, political parties can still rely on their supporters for donations. That's not too much to ask for is it? Barack Obama in the United States shows that its really easy to get political donations if people really support you.
Your claim that the Conservatives only want just shows how clouded your eyes have become due to your raging left wing bias. The same accusation of being power-hungry can be made about the Liberal Party and the Coalition.
Also Harper has an economics degree from the University of Edmonton, so he's not as "dumb" as you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
