So, with Wajid Khan scooting the Libs and plumping the Tories, the numbers in the House of Commons change a little and now PMSH has handed a giant lever of power to the NDP’s Jack Layton. If the Dippers are clever enough to extort billions in new spending from the Tories, the way they were with Paul Martin, then a Conservative-NDP alliance is one seat up on the Liberal-Bloc forces – assuming both independents vote with Dion and Duceppe.
Then again, Mr. Harper may not care to even have his government survive, since he’s a man on a mission to a majority, and a Spring election – based on a loaves-and-fishes budget from Jim Flaherty – could be exactly his game plan. In any case, my single little one vote could end up meaning more in the scope of things as an Indie than as one more cog in the blue machine.
Then again, maybe not. If the government has a good plan, of course, I will support it. If they cave to Jack the way Paul did, forget it. That’s exactly what I beieve my constituents would expect. The media? Another thing entirely, and this may be what CTV hosts Craig Oliver (usually grumpy) and Jane Taber (smartypants) want to discuss with me on the show today (Sunday).
It’s on the main network at noon, if you’re interested in seeing what happens to me!
49 comments ↓
I wonder if anyone on QP will mention the fact that there are now TWO unelected senators in the Harper cabinet.
Senator Marjory LeBreton is the new Secretary of State for Seniors and therefore has a seat at the Cabinet table (plus a bigger salary to boot).
Now, Marjory may be a nice lady and all but shouldn’t the folks that decide how to spend our hard-earned taxpayer dollars be ELECTED by us?
I guess that’s Harper’s Hidden Agenda on Senate Reform!
One has to wonder whether the time has not come for a “contract with voters.” For decades some of us have been trying to find a way to ensure that special interests do not run parties or the government and we have failed.
David Emerson was clearly interested in representing the interests of his lumber company not the interests of those who elected him. We have Khan who appears to be more interested representing political interests in another country, not the people who elected him here in Canada.
We have currently political elites manipulating the system in order to undermine the will of the electorate.
What we need to do is create a “contract with voters” for political candidates that expresses their commitment in broad terms to Canada and to their constituencies. While the courts, which are elitist in orientation and generally unwilling to intervene in cases of manipulation of the political system, would probably refuse to consider the validity of such contracts, they could become public relations nightmares for those elected MPs who refuse to sign or violate the clear intent of the documents.
If the government has a good plan, of course, I will support it. If they cave to Jack the way Paul did, forget it.
So let me get this straight. If the Cons release a budget that contains, lets say, an additional $4.5 billion for healthcare as the price for the NDP’s support (which would similar to the deal they made with the Liberals), you’ll vote it down? Do you really believe none of your constituents would want something like that? I mean it’s not like the NDP has ever asked for silly, wasteful nonsense in exchange for their support throughout its and its predecessor’s history. Their deals have always asked for something Canadians want.
Happy New Year Mr. Turner. I was wondering if you are familiar with the concept of the North American Union which is to take place between 2007-2010. The common currency reportedly is to be the ‘Amero’. I wonder if you had any information on this concept and your views on it. Thank you.
Robert-If the NDP was that good,more people would vote for them.They’re a bunch of nay saying whiners who turn into extortionists when the opportunity arises!!
Robert 4.5 billion in new taxation at a federal level to support provincial purposes.
Thats why I wont vote NDP. Ever.
It is not clear what the NDP are hoping to accomplish. All their strategy since the last election seems to have done is ensure that their support is evaporating. If they were able to push the Conservatives into adopting some good environmental legislation Garth would probably support it.
The environmental issue provides a major problem for an ideologically right wing party. They seek to protect the economic power of the current economic elite. The NDP would have to be willing to support legislation that would protect corporate profits. Such a policy would probably download costs to taxpayers (the powerful CEO class would seek to externalize corporate costs). I suspect any compromise would involve special consideration for unionized companies although the withdrawal of UMW support for the NDP clouds the value of that strategy for them.
When you have two ideological positions in complete opposition there is little room for achieving a common position.
It is not health care funding but some form of environmental policy that would help Layton get back some of his support from the Green Party. I believe the NDP is currently in a no-win position but in politics anything can happen.
On the issue of voting for the NDP many Canadians feel that the NDP provides an important role within the national debate or at least they once did. That does not mean that they would vote for them. Even Conservative strategists want the NDP around to take votes that might go to the Liberals.
Since I tend to be non-ideological (Progressive Conservative) neither the new Conservatives nor the NDP are real options. That leaves the Liberals which still have not defined any direction; and the Green Party which is still working to create its niche on numerous issues.
There are opportunities out there for good independents who can get their message out. Unfortunately, the system is weighted against most independents.
fergus on 01.06.07 1:51 pm
You mean this:
Deep Integration Planned at Secret Conference Ignored by the Media
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060919132553106
Say No to Deep Integration with the United States!
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/ribbon
Deep integration’ means deep trouble
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRA205A.html
Whose plan is Deep Integration anyways,
http://www.ndp.ca/page/1311
Paul Martin’s plan for deep integration
Someone please enlighten me.
Newsflash for: “By Concerned for Canada on 01.06.07 10:39 am” … she was already in the Cabinet. The Leader of the Government in the Senate always is.
Quite true, but without a portfolio or budget or responsibilities that could be accountable to the House of Commons. — Garth
I think we need that Great Canadian Captain James Tiberius Kirk to deal with Khan! He did it so well years ago! LOL
That will teach him not to cross the Neutral Zone!
Garth, I guess you must also have been alarmed by Senator Lowell Murray’s various cabinet responsibilities:
“In 1986, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Murray to the Cabinet as Leader of the Government in the Senate, and variously as Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (until April 21, 1991), Minister responsible for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (June 1987 to September 1988), and Acting Minister of Communications (December 1988 to 30 January 1989). Murray served as Government Leader in the Senate until the defeat of the government of Prime Minister Kim Campbell in 1993.
All cabinet minister should be elected, don’t you think? — Garth
Or for even more information and many links see…..
Timeline of the Progress Toward a North American Union
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/20060830133702539
The very fabic of Canadian society could be at risk here and almost nothing is seen in the MSM.
The latest plan for North American integration was set in motion by Paul Martin when he signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the Presidents of the United States and Mexico in the spring of 2005.
When Stephen Harper took over he continued the process by appointing the Canadian members of the North American Competitiveness Council. The Canadian members of this council come almost totally from the membership of the powerful Canadian Council of Chief Executives (Council members include CEOs such as Paul Desmaris, Jr. of PowerCorp, Richard Lee George of Suncor Energy, Hunter Harrison of CN, and James A. Shepherd of Canfor). The Council was tasked with coming up with the integration plan. It met in Washington on August 15, 2006 to set up its priorities and at that time mandated the national secretariats with creating work plans (the Canadian secretariat, is not surprisingly, composed entirely of people from the CCCE including its head, Thomas d’Aquino).
The Council tasked the Canadian secretariat with border facilitation including security, infrastructure, supply chain management, transport and logistics, and customs reform. The US secretariat was tasked with creating the working plan for regulatory convergence and the Mexican secretariat with energy integration.
It appears that a highly secretive meeting held September 12-14 at Banff may have been part of required consultations with various members of the economic and political elite.
This is the last reference that I have to its activities.
In the US CNN has covered the story and there is considerable concern there about what is happening but the Canadian media for some reason will not report the story. A major issue associated with this is the proposed construction of a highway from Mexico to the Canadian border (the NAFTA Highway). To construct this highway it is estimated that around half a million acres of private, mostly ranch land, will have to be expropriated in Texas alone.
Mr.Turner,
Would you join/support Mr.McCallum in his actions regarding income trusts?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=27174c26-b5d2-4874-af06-75663e6cf7f0&k=13006
Yes. — Garth
In the US CNN has covered the story and there is considerable concern there about what is happening but the Canadian media for some reason will not report the story
Maybe because this whole thing was a Liberal Party brainstorm?? Just look at the names of the CCCE members, it’s a who’s who of Liberal backers!! The media won’t ever shed a negative light on anything done by “Canada’s Natural Governing Party” it they can get away with it, just look how long it took for adscam to come out (thanks largely to the Bloc that it finally did) and they call themselves “investigative reporters”! Yeah….right…why don’t they google Maurice Strong (known as “Uncle Mo” to Bob Rae) and write about the UN/Kyoto/China/Liberal Party connections, it’s enough to make your head spin! And people think it’s the Conservatives that have a hidden agenda??!!
Once again, the biggest spenders until Martin’s liberal minority were the liberals and conservatives. Three brand new bureaucracies were created, two specifically for Quebec. These were supported by both the liberals and the conservatives, yet were voted against by the Bloc and the NDP. The so called ‘tax and spend’ people were actually the conservatives and liberals, not the NDP.
You can check them out at http://www.howdtheyvote.com its all there. Under Harper ‘spending’ via equalization has also been increasing, handouts to the provinces have been accelerating, just as they had with Martin. And the corporate welfare is continuing unabated, even though during the election that got Martin a minority Harper specifically said he was going to cut out corporate welfare. Now there is billions going to BC’s ports, and billions to Quebec and Ontario for pharmaceuticals and R&D and the auto sector.
If you want ‘tax and spend’ you certainly don’t have to look to the NDP, the difference, I suppose, is that the NDP wants to spend money on people.
Jim, I don’t have a problem with Senator LeBreton sitting at the cabinet table as the representative from the Senate. I do have a problem with the fact that people we don’t elect (Senators) are being appointed by the PMO (another unelected group) to spend the dollars that we all send to Ottawa. In my opinion, that is not the type of representation we should settle for.
Furthermore, this type of action is not just a Conservative problem – other federal parties (and I’m sure it also happens provincially too) are just as guilty. Maybe I was being naive, but I expected the CPC to bring about positive change in representing us. What I’m seeing recently is more of the same old crap.
What was one of the CPC campaign slogans? “Demand Better”….well guess what folks…I do demand better!
Jim, do you?
Garth, maybe you can bring up why the Harper Govt keeps calling itself Canada’s New Govt.
Canada’s New Government Renames Winnipeg International Airport in Honour of James Armstrong Richardson
— 2006-12-11
http://www.waa.ca/?pid=25&newsid=0065
the difference, I suppose, is that the NDP wants to spend money on people.
And theres the rub. The role of the federal government has very little to do with ‘people’ it has to do with states, trade, and settling squabbles between the provinces.
‘people’ arent within the scope of our constitution — thats for the provinces to manage.
AS for the Libs and Conservatives — they’re screwed up too — in the equalization market which should just sod off and die.
However, corporate welfare [a turf term for creating jobs] increased under harper because key areas of our economy took a major hit due to their failures within the trade portfolio with the U.S.
So when you screw up, you try to fix it. The problem is rolling back the welfare after its not needed — isn’t that the whole point of welfare? Corporations are people too remember.
We need to roll back the subsidies on our oil and gas sector, but hand out much more in areas like film and television or we’ll lose that market internationally.
The role of the feds is DEFINITELY to bail out industries that are being affected by trade disputes.
Its DEFINITELY not to create more beds in hospitals. Thats for the provincial legislatures to handle, and I for one wish for less centralized federal government in health care and education — not more as the ndp want.
This is an interesting article
The wealth gap widens
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/164866
With unelected cabinet ministers, mp’s switching sides and partianship running rife maybe we need to change the model of how our government runs.
Maybe we should move away from our current system to one similar to the US. (God, I never thought I would hear myself say this!)
So, we elect a senate, we elect our MPs, and we directly elect our Prime Minister. Not a first past the post, which party has the most MP’s decides our PM.
Then the PM. can chose from any and all senators and MP’s who makes up his administration. Note, all cabinet ministers have to be elected…not the cronyism of the US.
So if the best person for the PM job is a conservative, but we prefer more liberal policy…we can vote for the Tory PM, but liberal MPs and senators!
“The role of the federal government has very little to do with ‘people’ it has to do with states, trade, and settling squabbles between the provinces.”
That’s some bad ideological logic. IF corporations are ‘people’ (which is absurd, and if true then why should one type of ‘people’ get benefits others don’t-that would clearly be discrimination) then as the poster admits, that’s provincial jurisdiction.
Of course it is patently absurd, Canada’s charter is ALL about ‘canadians rights’, that’s individual canadians. That’s why there’s a federal court, that’s why there’s a Supreme Court of Canada. It’s also why health and safety regulations are set by the feds.
It’s also why canadians vote for a federal representative, it’s also why we pay most of our tax federally. If our canadian government existed for the above strange reasons, we wouldn’t need a ‘government’ at all, we’d be far better off with simply having provincial delegates debating trade (something that federal politicians NEVER do). So that’s a strange line of reasoning.
So to say that even while the feds control the wallet, they have nothing to do with actual canadians is pretty far in left field. To so that it only has to do with the ‘people’ (the ‘corporations mentioned above) is basically to admit that we live in oligarchy and SHOULD. The feds should only exist to help out the richest canadians when they mess up their business.
That’s a very odd view, and fortunately one I’ve never heard before so can assume its pretty subjective. However, whether people agree or not with that line of thinking isn’t the point, as the point was that liberals and tories are AS MUCH ‘tax and spend’ as are NDP, they just tax and spend on different things. So if you are canadian and looking for a party that is NOT of that ideology, you might as well move south of the border and become libertarian because all that exists here is BIG government looking out for corporate interests.
Re North American Union (Deep Intergraton Pact) Very interesting reading. Thanks for references. I wonder if the Amero is adopted what bearing that will have on our Pension Plans, Social Services etc. It is all rather really scary that this is progressing along with nary a mention in the Canadian media. They certainly have all of the main players in attendance to move this concept along.
Globalization column touched a raw nerve
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/168600
That’s a very odd view, and fortunately one I’ve never heard before so can assume its pretty subjective.
Kevin is absolutely correct when he states:
“‘people’ arent within the scope of our constitution — thats for the provinces to manage.”
This view of the division of responsibilities is indeed outlined in Canada’s Constitution in that the Feds are responsible for stuff like defense, foreign affairs, international trade, etc.. while the provinces are tasked with looking after health, education, welfare etc..(the people!).
For the past 13 years the Feds have moved more and more into Provincial jurisdictions to buy votes by promising more money to specific provincial programs. By attaching strings every time they send money to the Provinces they have managed to not only piss off the provinces but divide and conquer (and why we are now dealing with a huge “fiscal imbalance”)!
Prime Minister Harper is trying to put the Consitutional framework back to where it righly should be, a more decentralized Canada, just as intended in the Constitution.
“Maybe because this whole thing was a Liberal Party brainstorm?? Just look at the names of the CCCE members, it’s a who’s who of Liberal backers!! The media won’t ever shed a negative light on anything done by “Canada’s Natural Governing Party†it they can get away with it, just look how long it took for adscam to come out (thanks largely to the Bloc that it finally did) and they call themselves “investigative reportersâ€!”
Certainly this was a Liberal plan but one which has been taken over and expanded by the Conservatives. Remember that it Stephen Harper has selected the NCOs. This is another case that illustrates the ideological liberalism that is shared by Martin and Harper.
The concept that the private sector should take over the governance of society is part of Harper’s form of right wing conservatism in which the major economic players get to create the rules under which we all must live. Remember that “free” markets are not really “free” but markets controlled by private interests. In a globalized marketplace the ability of individual countries to govern themselves is diminished as multi-national capital gains power. This kind of corporate or “free” market system is fully supported by both Liberals and Conservatives. The main difference between the two parties is the that Conservatives oppose public social spending because it interferes with the “natural” order of economic class formation.
The central point is that this is the initiation of a plan for the corporate governance of North America. There are implications for every member of North American society when the corporate elite are given the power to create a system in their corporate self-interest.
Just watched QP – ya done well on all points, Garth.
IF corporations are ‘people’
They are, incorporation creates a separate legal entity which has been argued and accepted many times. The concept is called ‘corporate personhood’ and is primarily based in U.S. law, however the concept very much exists in Canada. Wikipedia has a good entry on this.
then as the poster admits, that’s provincial jurisdiction.
Some corporations belong to a province and are subject to their jurrisdiction. The provinces do bail out domestic industries from time to time. Where it becomes the role of the federal government is in relation to trade, tariffs and aportioned taxes. It is entirely possible however, to create a federal corporation and it will be managed similar to how our non-provincial territories and sable island are governed. The provinces have extra rights because those rights were never ceded to the federal government — not because the feds chose to let the provinces do those jobs.
The federal government is supposed to be a place of co-operatation and a merging of self-interest and not the overbearing government body
it has become. Federalism doesn’t work in our system because it only means that the largest group [ontario] decides how everyone should live their lives.
It’s also why canadians vote for a federal representative, it’s also why we pay most of our tax federally.
We pay federal income tax through a long line of perversion of the legal system. Certain rights are exclusively reserved for the provinces, others are exclusive domain of the federal government.
The problem is that the constitution gives exclusive right to ‘The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.’ [meaning aportioned taxes like gas-tax, stamp duties etc] and ‘Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes. ‘ to the provinces. [Meaning any non-aportioned tax, where the revenue is destined for provincial purposes]
Over the years there have been many cases on this law, but there has never been a supreme court case deciding whether or not the federal income tax is in fact even legal. And my guess is there wont ever be because if it ever got even close, they would settle it out and move onto the next guy.
So the reason we pay most taxes federally, is in fact, because it is a beast that has slowly grown out of control, so much so, that the provinces [especially quebec] are revolting and threatening secession.
we’d be far better off with simply having provincial delegates debating trade
_This_ is why we have provincial representation in ottawa and why the number of seats are directly proportionate to the number of people in each province.
So to say that even while the feds control the wallet, they have nothing to do with actual canadians is pretty far in left field.
The argument is that the feds should NOT control the wallet. Not how best to spend federal direct-taxation dollars for provincial purposes.
It’s also why health and safety regulations are set by the feds.
Sort of, see, in an effort to make sure there are the same criminal laws in each province — we delegated the power of the criminal code to the federal government.
They’ve since twisted this power into a set of regulations.. and at some point they just stopped trying to find constitutional authority for their actions.
It’s time to return to an era of strong, independant provinces as part of a united Canada with a much smaller federal government.
If it were me, each year for the next 20 years, I’d peel back the federal income tax and recommend that the provinces raise theirs to co-incide. Slowly, I’d return provincial purpose ministries to the provinces.
You are such a lying phoney Bastard , God look on your evil . You knock our efforts on the Aphgan mission and only paint negitivity for Conservatives. You , and I know that no other party is serious about our military portfolio. The Boc and NDP want to cut and run and let the Taliban reorchestrate attacks., and the Libs gutted the miulitary budget when having 3 majority parliaments.
Then you come along as a one man band and demean the efforts of our troops when we are putting forward a solid effort, cash , and diplomacy in the coffers to move ahead with the mission.
I am so glad you got your filthy ass kicked out of caucus , and I hope you get your filthy ass kicked out in the next election. You where always an over rated prospect for any serious post going back to Kim Cambell when you got your filthy ass kicked .
As far as I’m concerned , your just a filthy ASS
Christ died for our sins 1 Cor 15:3
Garth,
Watched you with Mr. Gregg opposite Jane Taber & Craig Oliver.
You were right to see through Baird’s straw man on the environment. I don’t think we’ll see anything noteworthy for several months on that file. He’ll continue to play the ‘blame game’ as he does in every QP.
Good answer to the Taber, ‘did you know’ question about your leadership aspirations. Especially now that you know 3,999 other people supported you at the same time. If that’s true, how did Kim Campbell become successful.
It was a pleasure to watch you deal with the issues in a forthright way.
John Baird could certainly ‘take lessons’ from you.
Leave it to Tim to introduce gutter drawl to the blog. I don’t respect your opinion, but I don’t call you names for it. It’s not just the NPD and Bloc that wants to ‘cut and run’, its just that the tories and liberals ignore those in their own parties. Cutting and running is also another term for ‘stopping an illegal act’. That’s fine if you don’t agree with me, and its fine that you don’t agree with Garth, but we’re trying to be a democracy here, be civil.
Mr. Turner,
being a fairly recent immigrant to Canada, I am now in the process of deciding how I would be voting in the next 40 years or so…
Question: The fellow named Tim, few messages above- is he representative for the Conservative base? Is that kind of language and attitude typical for a majority or a large part of the Conservative supporters?
Re: North American Union
Well it is was nice to finally see some Aware people discussing the upcoming implementation of the NAU.
The six-year countdown to December 21, 2012 is underway. However, before this key marker point comes around, you will have to endure a number of negative events – man-made and cosmic. Becoming part of the North American Union is going to be one of the man-made negative events.
Unlike the European Union, the NAU is going to be run like a giant corporation with an appointed Board of Directors. You will not have to worry about democratic elections or corrupt politicians because there won’t be any. The official date is by 2010. However, it is my opinion that they are going to try and implement it by the end of 2007. This would make George W. Bush the last elected president of the USA.
However, there is a possibility that the US Dollar could collapse sometime this year. If so, you could see the introduction of the Amero before you see the NAU. The collapse of the dollar would also provide another reason for the proponents to use for the implementation of this Union. (Problem-Reaction-Solution)
Look at the USA right now. The American middle class are already being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. The war on the American middle class is the only war that Bush is winning. The American Constitution is slowly being unravelled by the White House, and there are even some politicians who want to ban the ownership of guns by citizens. George W. Bush and his supporters in both parties support all of the illegal immigration from Mexico because they support the NAU. The only person in the MSM that has even mentioned this large problem is Lou Dobbs of CNN.
A variety of alternative media outlets have been discussing these issues.
The NAU eliminates borders so that cheap Mexican labour will be able to spread out across all of the American states and the Canadian provinces. The American Corporate Elites are already making full use of this cheap labour.
If you want to stop this merger, you will have to Rise Up against your oppressors as other citizens in other nations have done before you in history. What are you willing to sacrifice?
It does not matter which political party is in power. They will all support the NAU. You do not win an election and become the PM unless you have already committed yourself to the Corporate Elite Agenda, which Stephen Harper has done, and which Stephane Dion must have already done in order to become the new Liberal Leader. (Remember Dion is a protege of Chretien.)
It takes time and effort to Become Aware.
P.S. In regards to John Baird. Based on the comments that I saw him make on Global TV News, he knows even less about the real reasons for Climate Change than Rona Ambrose did. All Baird will do is be louder about the issue than Ambrose was. Perhaps Stephen Harper will allow the Corporate Elites to buy/sell carbon emissions. That should please some people.
Cheers.
PLEASE FIND YOR WAY BACK INTO THE CON. PARTY.. I’M A LONG TIME FAN OF YOURS AND HATE TO SEE YOUR TALENT NOT BEING USED TO YOUR ADVANTAGE AND THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PARTY AND THE COUNTRY.
AS A FORMER ACTIVIST WITH THE P.C. PARTY,(FOR OVER 40 YEARS) WHO VIEWED YOU AS ONE OF THE COUNTRY’S ‘BRIGHT LIGHTS’ I HATE TO SEE YOU SITTING OUTSIDE OF CABINET AND THE ”INNER CIRCLE”. NOW RETIRED, BUT VERY INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY, AS I WAS DURING MY 5 1/2 YEARS OF ACTIVE SERVICE DURING WW11, MOST OF IT OVERSEAS. I THINK YOU OWE IT TO CANADA AND YOURSELF TO OVERCOME ANY MAN MADE BARRIERS AND RESOLVE THEM. THAT’S MY NICKEL’S WORTH. HOPE YOU DON’T RESENT MY INTRUSION. GOD BLESS AND GOOD LUCK. PAUL
Solitario,
Tim does not represent any sane political element in Canada. He is the modern neo-con version of what used to be the heckler in our system, someone who was slipped 10 bucks or a bottle of booze to attend someone else’s political event and disrupt it by heckling.
As to who to vote for in the next 40 years, you could do worse than stay nonpartisan and vote for or against the government of the time. I do believe that there are more swing-voters out there than party loyalists, and that they make the real contribution to keeping government as honest as possible.
Re: North American Union
This is a follow-up to my earlier post. I just finished my daily surfing routine, and I came across a bunch of pertinent articles that would be of value to anyone who wants background on the broad issues surrounding the NAU.
Since we are apparently destined to become part of the American Corporate Empire, everyone should check out the following web pages.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53633
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53599
http://www.rense.com/general74/foeo.htm
http://www.rense.com/general74/mut.htm
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=164355
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=164347
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=164266
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=164249
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=164221
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=97685
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=97740
It takes time to Become Aware.
Cheers.
The pool of swing voters appears to be growing. Many former PC supporters are now swing voters because their party no longer exists.
The Progressive Conservative Party was not ideologically right wing while the Canadian Alliance was. When the parties merged the leaders decided that the new party would take the Canadian Alliance right wing ideology to make the new party exclusively right wing. Those of us who were seen as “progressive” or “red” Tories were told to leave the party (or had their membership terminated) and join the Liberals (some did).
I am surprised at the “quality” of people, such as Garth, who failed to understand what had happened. I suppose he was sufficiently “right wing” to be seen as acceptable as long as he abandoned all progressive thinking.
Why is it, that people who where suspended or quit from caucus only started in 1990? That seems like a pretty new form of punishment to MP’s. What has it never been used before that time?
Sounds like the big parties are taking advantage of something that was never used before. Is it even allowed?
For the politically correct upright and moral crowd . My post was a personal email , and not a post on the blog . But seeing you have no problem differentiating a person email from a blog post, I wanted you to know that Garth posted that note not I. I really don’t give a rats ass about your opinion of me or my post. Last time I checked it was a free world with a free speach policy.
You politicians always try to separate your loathing of the military , and mask it under some pretense . Do I agree more can be done in Afghanistan , absolutely , but 2 of the 3 parties want to cut and run in a minority parliament , and use our military as ponds for their own polital agenda. The Libs don’t know where they actually stand. Your public grandstanding serves no real purpose other than smear for political gain. Before development can be reasonably achieved , there has to be security. There have been tremendous inroads of success in Afghanistan. 25 of 26 provinces have reasonible stability and you bitch about the one province that stability has yet to be accomplished. Our Nato led forces have made many , many inroads of success and all you can paint is doom and gloom.
I trust the Conservatives more than any party or INDEPENDANTS to work successfully with our allies to WIN this conflict , as long as we have Conservatives guiding our forces WE WILL WIN , and NATO has to win.
If you are so pro success , why are you not mentioning what has been accomplished to date in the mission? There was not one single note of any successes achieved. Mr. McKay is in Afghanistan trying to work on diplomatic solutions on the border issues. So what kind of message does our parliament send to our allies , and troops. DOOM , and GLOOM. So what do you propose we do, build a school so that we can say we are in developement mode only to have if blown up the next day? Our Government is trying to diplomatically put presser on the Afghan government to resolve the border issue. Or , do we pull out and permit the Taliban to re orchestrate attack’s on the free world and undo the stability achieved to date. I agree we need more forces which Mr. Harper has been advocating , I agree that we need to train the Afghan people to secure their own country. What pisses me off are the politicians that soley focus publically on the negetive elements , but really do not want to commit with our allies to complete the job , and then tell us it can’t be won.
I want you to tell me Garth which party you think has the balls to see the mission to the end , and will do all within their power to achieve that objective. I’ll give you my answer.
THE CONSERVATIVES
This was my second email post that Garth for whatever reason did not put on his Blog
Herb,
I hope you’re right.
Maybe I had an idealized picture about my new country, Canada.
When I read Tim’s “opinion”, I had flashbacks to a time and a space I thought I left behind. Intolerance and violence…
I hope Tim is not representative for the Conservative base, though I thought I noticed the same kind of language and attitude in our Parliament. And it was coming from the Conservatives. Didn’t one of them called one of his female colleagues – a dog?
Wasn’t another one making gross jokes about a “conservative bone†this lady might have had?
And you guys are really holier than I thought. You mean you never told a dirty joke , or heard anything from a Liberal or an INDEPENDANT that wasn’t a bit distasteful. And buy the way I happen to think that Ralpoh Klien did a fine job in Alberta . And I toltally agree with his anaylisis. In fact I would take it one step further and say that every Dog needs a bone once in a while.
In my opinion the increasing tendency of members to be expelled or to leave party caucuses has a variety of causes including the following.
1. Poor leadership. Poor leaders tend to use autocratic means to maintain control. They are too insecure to allow MPs individual freedom of expression. Good leaders only need to maintain the confidence of the caucus not to dominate it.
2. The decline in “public service” motivation. MPs often seek nominations to advance special interests rather than for general public service. Most floor crossing is from opposition parties to the governing party. That reflects the growth of opportunism over service. What I have noticed is a tendency for parties to recruit “star” candidates that have no roots in the party culture. The star power is more important than the quality of the candidate because the media automatically gives the star an often undeserved high quality rating. The quality of candidates has declined because the perception is that star quality increases electability.
3. A growing disrespect for our electoral system. Clearly, those who reject the policies on which they were elected for those of another party reveal disrespect for the decision making process of voters that did not cast a personal vote for the candidate and voted instead for the party or the policy platform.
This disrespect for voters extends to the political leaders and parties who thumb their noses at voters by luring MPs across the house or by suspending those elected under the party banner from caucus.
With good, ethical leadership I don’t believe we would see so much of this kind of manipulation of democracy. Good leaders are reluctant to come forward because politics has become such a dirty, negative business pushed.
Solitario,
don’t let a bit of static throw you off. Canadian politics compares quite favourably to some European politics I have seen. Our Honourable Members of Parliament let off steam now and then, and some of it gets picked up by the media. You should have been around for Trudeau’s “Fuddle duddle”! The “Conservative bone” was the contribution of an outgoing provincial premier to federal politics.
What is puzzling you is the Americanization of Canadian politics. Politics didn’t used to be a blood sport in Canada. We never took political life as seriously because we did not have jobs down to local dog catcher depend on which party was in power, which makes US politics a lot more corrosive. But our own right-wingers have imported American neo-con attitudes, terminology and methods into our political process, and it will take a while to get back to the normal laid-back Canadian style.
AND THAT IS NOT ANTI-AMERICANISM!
Garth” It was not so long ago that I wrote to you and gave you a big thanks for your account of leaving the Conservative party. You did that admirably> In following your blog site more often since then, I am beginning to believe it is becoming a propaganda outlet for the Liebrals. We read nothing but criticism. Why do people insisit on whinning and crying about what is happening and never have any suggestions as to how things could be done to improve their particular bitch? For instance, someone is always bitching about Fortier and Emmerson, but have nothing to say about Brisson and Stronach. For Fortier, no one seems to remember Chretien appointing, yes, none other then Dion, Tobin, and if memory serves me well, Codeere (spelling?)all after the same election. Fact is, only two Prime Ministers have never made appointments to Cabinet, those being Paul Martin and Kim Campbell. Speaking of Dion and his Deputy, one has to ask “Are we not a Soverign Nation? Why do we need “part time Canadians” to try to run our Country? And Dion again, we heard so much jerk reporting on Harpers’ hair style, yet nothing on the “shaggy” Dion, why not? Globe and Mail Liebral “pocket media”, of course, why else?
Countless mumblings on the environment and Koyoto, yet not one mention that this was signed onto by the Liebrals approx. 14 years back, yes, in the nineties. yet our emmissions increased by 30%. Now, our Government, and I really do not care who would be the Government of the day, is supposed to make our air clean within a matter of a couple years. To you complainers, get real.
You have posted your “If I were Prime Miniter” and gave a list of priorities. The one MAJOR ommission in that line up is “If I were Prime Minister and I had an MP who believed that he could do a better job then me, what would I do with him? Perhaps you would care to outline just how you would handle a rangy tang MP. In your year end accounting, you excuse yourself for all of your current troubles, they are bundled into “it is not my fault, I did nothing wrong” No, Garth, you and you alone put yourself in the position you are today. You, of all people, should fully realize a minority Government has to walk a fine line, and needs the support of every member, regardless of their own ambitions. Also, aminority Government cannot have 4/5 – 6 or more people making decisions. It will not work, just ask Paul Martin. When you speak of “top down” control, are you speaking of Chretien. If you are one of those persons that believe Chretien’s cabinet did not know or suspect sonething was going on during the tenure of the Ad Scams, I have a few “gold plated” bridges to sell to you. You also condem our Government for changing their mind on the Income Trust situation. Tell me, why should the oil corporations not pay their fair share of taxes, especially when they gloatingly report their quarterly earnings. Besides, do you remember Chretien telling us all he would rescind the GST.? He got elected largely on that promise alone. Did he?
There is one very good item on the list, “If I were Prime Minister” and that is to change the way we elect our MP’s and MLA’s. BUT, I will never ever agree that Porportional Representation is the way to go.Under this system, only a portion of MP’s/MLA’s are elected by the public. The remainder are “chosen” from party lists. Who makes this choice, who else, the PM. What change would this make? NOTHING. The only way to take absolute power/control out of the office of the PM is to use the Single Transferable Vote system (STV).Under this system every member is elected by the public, but, any number of people can run for office, even though only one can be elected. By this, I mean, several Liebrals, several PC’s/Green Party.NDP, can can put their name on the ballot, in any constituency as they do not need the endorsement of the party leader. And they do not need a “bank roll” to enter the race. We in B>C> had a golden opportunity to lead the way in changing the way we elect our representatives. We were skewered by, who else, past politicians, present politicians and wannabees. Why, because it would have made them represent their constituents, not their leader.this First past the Post system should have died with the Dodo bird. In our newest territory, Nunavut, they have a legislature of nineteen. They do not have such things as “parties”. They elect nineteen people. After the election, they go behind closed doors and choose a leader. then they get down to work. You can bet your bottom dollar, the legislation they pass is good for the whole territory and not just for some large conglomerate. Lobbying is out. There is one other European country that uses this system. Ireland and Malta use the STV system. Isreal and Italy use the Porportional Representation system and we all know what kind of Governments they have. Next, I do not accept your comments or reasons therefore in regard to Mr. Khan. If his knowledge and advice to the PM resulted in one LESS death of our soldiers, he deserves a medal. However, we will never know that. But I ask you, if you were PM and were given this offer of help, would you have turned it down? Having said this, one has to go back to him approaching his party leader, Mr. Graham, and being given the “go ahead”. By this very unselfish act, both men show they value the lives of our soldiers more then partisan politics. For me, Mr.Khan for making the offer, Mr. Graham for agreeing to it, and Mr. Harper for accepting it, has shown they are truly caring Canadians and have risen above B—- S— politics. I do wish you a happy and healthy New Year and ask that you continue your effort to change the way we elect our reps, both, Federal and Provincial. – Jo5ey
.
speaking of Dion
Re: comments of Jo5ey on 01.07.07 10:14 pm
Maybe the reason most commentators here are focusing on the Conservatives at this point is that they spent since 1993 criticizing the Liberals for doing exactly the same things as the Conservatives are now doing. In fact, the Conservatives promised to do things differently but now excuse their actions by saying the Liberals did it. The hypocrisy is obvious to any intelligent person.
When a person is purely partisan they tend to ignore positive suggestions, such as Garth’s platform. Many positive ideas have been placed on these forums for discussion.
There are solutions: such as total reform of the party system which are nothing more than private clubs created to control the public agenda. It is those who are behind the central party machine that control the agenda not the members.
Create an even playing field for all registered parties and independents in fund raising and stop favouring the status quo parties. Stop parachuting candidates and the recruiting of “stars” simply because they can be elected. Encourage the creation political parties that are not tied to special interests such as labour unions and corporations.
None of these things will happen because the establishment likes to have parties they can control and who will operate in their interests.
Federal political parties rather than being facilitators of democracy are now entities being used to destroy democracy. It does not have to be this way.
To summarize, those of us who are critics seek to take back our political system and it matters not whether it is Conservatives or Liberals who are in power they have proven to be wanting in integrity. We are tired of the increasing disrepsect for democracy and the will of the electorate that is deeply ingrained in the culture of the current party system.
Remember one thing: that most forms of proportional representation actually strengthens the power of political parties.
Re: C.B.Innes – 010807 – Thank you for your comments, re Jo5ey. I fully agree, we must reform how our policitical parties operate. However, if Porportional Representation strengthens these parties that is not the way to go, in my humble opinion. We need less Party Power, not more of it. With an STV system we could wind up with 20/40 independent MPs’. Now, compromise would be absolutely necessary, and it would also take away the power of lobbyists. They would find themselves having to “deal” with far too many MPs’ to get their wishes. Thus, hopefully more legislation for the good of the Nation. Jo5ey