So basically the opposition is ticked off that the Conservatives didn't do what they wanted... So now they're going to throw a temper tantrum and kick them out...
Well that's how it works, or do you not understand the very basic premise of a minority government? They don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want.
Oh I get it... They can do a vote of no confidence when they're displeased. They need to sort their shit out before they do that if they really want to change anything though.
The Cons have been playing chicken with the opposition since they came in power. I just think that the end result is going to be an election with ridding staying pretty much as they are. No party has the math to make this work The libs and NDP could form a coalition but they have had that option for a while now and not done it.
So basically the opposition is ticked off that the Conservatives didn't do what they wanted... So now they're going to throw a temper tantrum and kick them out...
Well that's how it works, or do you not understand the very basic premise of a minority government? They don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want.
Oh I get it... They can do a vote of no confidence when they're displeased. They need to sort their shit out before they do that if they really want to change anything though.
Well, yes. The government cannot govern without the confidence of the house and if they piss off the majority to the point where they simply reject the budget, well we need a new government.
So basically the opposition is ticked off that the Conservatives didn't do what they wanted... So now they're going to throw a temper tantrum and kick them out...
Well, no, the NDP members were elected to vote on NDP values and policies, and if the budget is not sufficiently onside with that, they shouldn't vote for it.
Perhaps this is my disconnect... A budget is proposed... it doesn't meet the needs of the NDP/Libs/Bloc... They vote it down, Cons have to go make another budget.
Wash, rinse, repeat. What number of proposed budgets are we at right now?
How is the bill a "giant fuck you" to the other parties?
I'm not disagreeing, I'm ignorant, and would like an un-propaganda'd explanation. Going to ndp.ca and liberal.ca ist not very informative, shockingly.
That's a pretty good question. I just hope you have a good definition of "un-propaganda'd" that allows for hearing why it is a "giant fuck you" in each of the various opposing parties own words, otherwise you are just taking the word of various political pundits and lobby groups aka think tanks.
IMHO, if you are willing to accept it, the budget as proposed was a giant middle finger because the Conservatives knew that the opposing parties were going to take them to task for the many investigations into their disregard for parliamentary democracy - can you blame em? The government was caught lying to our elected Members of Parliament and that was only the latest flip of the bird from them in a very long list of bird flips. The Conservatives would rather go into a election claiming it was because of the other parties not working with them on the proposed budget when in fact the Conservatives didn't send negotiators when they presented the budget to the other parties for review, they sent ultimatums. Its like they figured "Hey, we got caught in contempt of parliament, we know that we are going to get caught in the "In&Out" funding fraud later and we don't think that the Canadian people are going to fall for another prorogue on the eve of a non-confidence vote, lets double down and go for all the marbles by submitting a budget we know they won't be able to support and if they do they will look like fools for not calling us on it! Start up the propaganda machines, we're going to an election boys!"
So, what was actually in the budget that was so offensive? The budget presented basicly cut public services and regulation across the board compared to the projections of what was needed to keep them viable, going the opposite way from what the other parties were asking for, while giving those same tax dollars to corporations that are seeing record profits in the form of tax breaks. How in the hell were they supposed to bring that back to their party membership and convince them they did the right thing by voting for a budget like that? If you want to read the budget as presented by Conservative Minister of Finance Flaherty for yourself because my summary is ridiculously simplistic or my summary was just plain wrong, here ya go: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/home-accueil-eng.html
I would like to point out again that thinking our election process is bull shit plays right into the Conservative's hands, who do you think benefits the most when there is a low voter turn out? Why do you suppose the Conservatives are so very heavily in favour of American style attack ads convincing us to vote against the other guy in recent years compared to policy presentation adverts set in a positive light of why we should vote for them? Why do you suppose the message the Conservatives are trying to sling is fear mongering that the other parties will wreck the economy?
CanadianWolverine on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Budgets are automatic confidence measures. You can't "go make another budget" because if it doesn't pass, then you're about to have an election.
Budgets are automatic confidence measures. You can't "go make another budget" because if it doesn't pass, then you're about to have an election.
He's just skipping the step where the Cons win another minority government--the assumed (by many) outcome of this election.
I would say that, yes, if you do not have the support of enough Canadians to form a majority government, this is exactly how things should work. Keep making budgets that are clearly unsuitable to the opposition parties and keep going to elections or start working with the opposition parties to find a budget what will be passed. That's the whole point of the game with minority governments.
So the laundry list of "stupid things Conservatives have done" is extensive, and this is kinda the straw the broke the camel's back. I can dig it. And when you make it about the budget, which is clearly what is being attempted here, that plays into the Cons' hands because, let's face it, we've had a pretty good run economically while they've been at the helm.
I still don't see this resulting in any sort of change on the hill, sadly...
If you go and support the budget only to pass the non-confidence motion coming up in a day or two (about the contempt of the House or whatever), that can play even more into the Cons' hands, as you've gone on the record saying you agree with and like their financial proposals.
At least this way, the opposition parties are free to attack/use the budget measures in a campaign without looking like hypocrites.
LaOs on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
There's also the note that the Liberals did have an opposition day prior to the budget, but the government [strike]removed[/strike] rescheduled it such that the opposition wouldn't have an opportunity to bring down the government before the budget could be proposed. So yea, you'd have to bring it down now or never because you can't be seen agreeing with the government today and toppling them tomorrow.
IMHO that is a terrible assumption, that the Cons end up with a minority government again, remember when we assumed Paul Martin and the Liberal Party was just going to get another minority, oh, 6 years ago? It just comes across like a self fulfilling prophecy to assume the outcome of an election is going to be roughly how Parliament was seated when we went in.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
I really hope the other parties do include coalition in their platforms, get some cooperation going for a change.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
It's kinda funny, but the whole "UBB/Cell Phone bills are too high!/Lack of Competition" thing that's going on, might just be one of those types of issues.
I was just reminded of something else, how are the other parties supposed to trust the "balanced" part of the Conservatives budget? Haven't they been releasing "balanced" budgets over the past years that they then several months later they revise to be deficits and blame it on the economic projects not being accurate? http://www.thestar.com/article/413170 <--- That was from 3 years ago. This is what happened in a bit more detail:
Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty predicted a small surplus for 2008-09 and delivered a small deficit. Budget 2009 predicted the following:
09-10: -$33.7 billion
10-11: -$29.8 billion
11-12: -$13.0 billion
12-13: -$ 7.3 billion
13-14: +$0.7 billion
And we haven't been having a good run economically because of the Conservatives, that was thanks to Paul Martin when he was Minister of Finance and his banking regulations. We've only been on a good run by comparison to how hard a hit the world took when the various kinds of "bankers" in the US got social assistance instead of going to prison and having their assets seized, you know, kinda like what the banks did families who had a mortgage with them (not just the bad mortgages either). When you think of our good run economically, it really should be the Liberals listening to the other parties and co-opting their deficit and debt reduction policies even though they had a majority government at the time.
The reverberations of Conservative minority government deregulation will have impacts on our future just like it did for the US under Bush's 8 years as well. Will we have oil, gas, and coal related enviromental disasters (thus economic disasters)? A banking crisis? Tainted food products? Inadequate natural disaster preparation and relief? Lack of doctors, nurses, medical techs, paramedics, and researchers? Failing infrastructure? More people in prison over petty drug prohibition offences? Who knows, but personally I think Canada has suffered enough under Harper and his ilk already, my turning point was the first prorogue to kill the coalition in the cradle.
They are doing a non-confidence vote on the contempt motion before (on Friday) a vote on the budget (which would be Monday, I think), so the government will be brought down on contempt, not the budget.
Also, if the Conservatives were completely serious about avoiding an election, they still are able to amend the budget. They have refused to do so.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
It's kinda funny, but the whole "UBB/Cell Phone bills are too high!/Lack of Competition" thing that's going on, might just be one of those types of issues.
Playing the devil's advocate here but to the majority of Canadians the Cons looked like they stepped up and quashed that pretty hard.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
It's kinda funny, but the whole "UBB/Cell Phone bills are too high!/Lack of Competition" thing that's going on, might just be one of those types of issues.
Playing the devil's advocate here but to the majority of Canadians the Cons looked like they stepped up and quashed that pretty hard.
Well, they delayed it... Big Telco is still trying to push it through.
There are a lot Parliamentary hijinks happening this afternoon which I'll try to explain in a minute. For those you not named Kady O'Malley (I tease because I like!) let me cut to the chase:
The next and last vote of the Parliament (barring some routine procedural votes) will be Friday at about 1:30 pm on the following motion, tabled today by the Liberals:
"That the House agrees with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the Government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian Parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the Government."
All three opposition parties will vote in favour of this motion and that will be that for the 40th Parliament.
And now for those of you, like my friend Kady, who have an abiding interest in all things Parliamentary ...
What about a vote in the House of Commons that will find the government in contempt of Parliament? What about some votes on the budget presented by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty? What about votes on those supplementary estimates? Ain't never gonna happen.
Here's why.
This afternoon in the House of Commons, MPs began debating "concurrence" in the contempt report from the Procedure and House Affairs Commitee (PROC). Under the procedural rules, three hours of House of Commons time is allotted for that debate. At the end of that debate, MPs will vote to "concur" with that report which would mean that, for the first time ever, a government would be found in contempt of Parliament.
But there is simply not enough time in the House of Commons calendar today to squeeze in three hours of debate before the House adjourns at 5:30 p.m.
Under the rules, it is up to the government to schedule the remainder of time of debate on the contempt report and its subsequent vote. But the government can reschedule that any time over the next 10 sitting days. That will never happen because this Parliament ends Friday.
So bottom line here: This government will never be found in contempt of Parliament.
The opposition parties are happy with this -- and are putting up speakers to run out the clock to 5:30 -- because of another procedural side effect of spending all day today debating the contempt report, that being, we will not get to to any votes on the budget becausethose votes cannot happen at least until the second day of debate on the budget.
Had the House of Commons spent even 30 seconds today debating the budget, today would have been declared the first day of budget debate. The Conservatives were trying to do that, one more little way to show they are "focused on the economy."
So on Thursday, we will have our first day of budget debate. Under Parliamentary rules, on the first day of budget debate (which now is not today) the Official Opposition (the Liberals) introduces a motion on the budget. Also on the first day of budget debate, the Bloc Quebecois gets to introduce a sub-amendment on that Liberal motion. MPs then spend the day debating the budget but the votes, by rule, on the Liberal motion and the BQ sub-amendment are held on the second day of budget debate. That day, too, will never come because Parliament will end on Friday.
Friday is a special kind of day in the Parliamentary calendar. It is known as a supply day and it is the last possible day that this particular supply day can be held. By rule, all other House business -- such as the second day of budget debate or anything else -- is put off until this supply day is done. The day will be spent debating the motion that the Liberals tabled today (the one at the top of this post) and then, at 1:30 p.m., three different votes are scheduled.
The first vote will be on the Liberal non-confidence motion. The second and third are votes on routine money bills that give the government the authority to spend money over the next few months. Those two money bills are also, by definition, confidence votes because they are related to the budget. But because the Liberal motion is first up the House will have declared no confidence in the government making votes on those money bills a moot point.
Why do the opposition parties like the way this unfolds? Largely because they will have been able to say: At the first opportunity they had this (even though it's an opportunity they kind of engineered) they voted to bring down the government.
IMHO that is a terrible assumption, that the Cons end up with a minority government again, remember when we assumed Paul Martin and the Liberal Party was just going to get another minority, oh, 6 years ago? It just comes across like a self fulfilling prophecy to assume the outcome of an election is going to be roughly how Parliament was seated when we went in.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
I really hope the other parties do include coalition in their platforms, get some cooperation going for a change.
Well, when Martin won in 2004, the Conservative Party was pretty close to the practical minimum with regard to their seat count. They have roughly 50 safe seats in the West and about 40 in Ontario (seats where they have historically won an absolute majority of the votes), so their floor is roughly 90 seats. They actually lost close to 9% of their popular support from the combined level enjoyed by the Alliance and the PCs. By way of comparison, the Liberals have around 60 safe seats across the country (same definition, seats where they historically win an absolute majority), the Bloc has about 40 and the NDP has about 10. So in any election there are really only 108 seats that are actually "in play".
For the Liberals to form a majority government, they need to win 90% of those contested seats. The Conservatives need to win just under 60%. Any split that falls roughly along the lines of the parties proportional levels of support is going to return another Conservative minority. A three way coalition with the Bloc, NDP and Liberals isn't really tenable for any significant length of time - the only reason such an idea would ever be floated is if the continued existence of these parties was on the line (which it was with the poison pill legislation regarding funding of political parties). The realistic option for a coalition government is if the combined seat count of the Liberals and the NDP is 155 seats. In order to do that, both the Liberals AND the NDP would need to increase their seat counts by about 50% from where they stand currently. The Liberals might be able to this, as they are pretty close to their floor of support right now, but for both parties to do so would be much less likely, as they not only have to increase their counts but also cannot do so at the other party's expense. It's theoretically possible for them to form a minority coalition, but that would be a much harder sell and much less stable.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
Well, then I hope during this election campaigning those seats go into play.
Edit: For instance, the riding I reside in has elected a Conservative MP, James Lunney. He has been elected a number of times. Any suggestions on what I can do to make sure that my fellow Canadians get the message in this riding to not elect a Conservative again?
Well, then I hope during this election campaigning those seats go into play.
For it to effect this election, there would probably need be new information pertaining to one of the current scandals, or some new scandal, that tarnished the Conservative brand with voters in those ridings. The Liberals or NDP would need to then be on the ball enough to capitalize on it. The problem here being that usually they aren't - the folks running for them in these ridings are sacrificial lambs thrown up simply to have some one contesting the seat (because there's also the chance that something specific to that seat might happen, like the incumbent getting arrested for some reason, that would upset the local status quo).
If the Liberals or NDP were gaining support more gradually, you might see some of these seats move from "safe" to "contested", with maybe the odd upset victory. That wouldn't be in time for this election, but would effect future elections.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
The Liberals haven't won Quebec since Trudeau in 1980. Their "Quebec wing" collapsed after 1984 and Mulroney's huge win, followed by all of the constitutional discord of the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the last party before the Bloc to win a majority of Quebec seats was the PCs in 1988.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
To show how far the Liberals have fallen in Québec... even Hull-Aylmer is now in play! That seat was won by a margin of 15% by the Liberals last time. It has elected a Liberal non stop since 1917. Being right next to Ottawa, the main source of employement in the riding is the federal governement.
This poll appeared in the newpaper Le Droit a few days ago.
Gatineau also elected Liberals more often than not troughout it's history but it wasn't as much of a stronghold than Hull.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I'd like that better than either the Libs or the Bloc, yeah. They did come very come last time, their low result in that poll did surprise me, but not as much as the close race in Hull.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
I was just reminded that Peter Milliken is going to be among the MPs that are choosing not to run again, which means we'll be getting a new Speaker in the next Parliament.
Internal Canadian nuclear industry information (leaked through an unnamed contact):
Japan Update - March 24
I know each of you is interested in the status of events at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan. Below, you will find today's summation of the events, as taken from the WANO website. These daily emails are being sent to you to keep you up to date as things progress.
Anytime you are unsure about information being circulated, please ask for clarification.
Fukushima Daiichi Site-Work continues to restore power inside Units 1-4 from temporary offsite power supplies.
Common Spent Fuel Pool-Water injection into the common spent fuel pool was completed on March 21. The water temperature in the pool was approximately 61
degrees centigrade.
Fukushima Daiichi Units 1/2/3-Seawater injection continues into these units.
Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2-18 tonnes of seawater were injected into the spent fuel pool on March 22.
Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3-TEPCO has restored electricity to the Unit 3 control room. Lights in the control room were switched on for the first time since the earthquake. The work was delayed due to black smoke coming from the Unit 3 reactor building. Workers were evacuated due to the smoke. The source is unknown.
Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4-A concrete pumping truck is being used to spray water (not concrete) into the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. The concrete pumping truck has an extension arm and is able to more accurately spray water into the spent fuel pool than the fire trucks do.
Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5/6-Residual heat removal pumps powered from off site are being used to remove heat from both spent fuel pools.
Miscellaneous Information-The Japanese government has requested the shipment of spinach, cabbage, broccoli, and turnips be suspended from areas surrounding Fukushima Daiichi as well as suspending the shipment of raw milk produced in the area.
The Tokyo metropolitan government requested that parents living in all 23 wards and five cities not give children, under one year of age, tap water to drink. The radioactive nuclide iodine 131 at 210 Bq/kg was detected in the Tokyo metropolitan water treatment plants. This level is lower than the safety guideline for adults, which is 300 Bq/kg, but higher than that for infants less than one year old. The limit for infants is 100 Bq/kg.
This is an event we need to learn from. Here's how.
I was just reminded that Peter Milliken is going to be among the MPs that are choosing not to run again, which means we'll be getting a new Speaker in the next Parliament.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
The Liberals haven't won Quebec since Trudeau in 1980. Their "Quebec wing" collapsed after 1984 and Mulroney's huge win, followed by all of the constitutional discord of the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the last party before the Bloc to win a majority of Quebec seats was the PCs in 1988.
It's not a question of winning Quebec as a whole, it is a matter of having a core of safe seats in the province. As it stands now, they don't. The Quebec wing also doesn't simply refer to MPs who are elected from that province, but also the party organizers, fundraisers, etc.
I was just reminded that Peter Milliken is going to be among the MPs that are choosing not to run again, which means we'll be getting a new Speaker in the next Parliament.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
The Liberals haven't won Quebec since Trudeau in 1980. Their "Quebec wing" collapsed after 1984 and Mulroney's huge win, followed by all of the constitutional discord of the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the last party before the Bloc to win a majority of Quebec seats was the PCs in 1988.
It's not a question of winning Quebec as a whole, it is a matter of having a core of safe seats in the province. As it stands now, they don't. The Quebec wing also doesn't simply refer to MPs who are elected from that province, but also the party organizers, fundraisers, etc.
I know what you mean. And it's wrong to say that the Liberals have a "core of safe seats" in the province. They don't. They have Montreal, and areas where there are concentrations of Anglos and non-Francophones.
Really, the Liberals only have three areas where they are strong in the country: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. You can't form a national government that way.
I was just reminded that Peter Milliken is going to be among the MPs that are choosing not to run again, which means we'll be getting a new Speaker in the next Parliament.
Dang.
Dang.
And guess who will be appointing him/her.
/diesontheinside
Speaker is elected by MPs through a secret ballot, not appointed. Hopefully the parties will be smart and elect someone equal to the task.
Any idea who would be interested in being speaker?
I was just reminded that Peter Milliken is going to be among the MPs that are choosing not to run again, which means we'll be getting a new Speaker in the next Parliament.
Dang.
Dang.
And guess who will be appointing him/her.
/diesontheinside
Speaker is elected by MPs through a secret ballot, not appointed. Hopefully the parties will be smart and elect someone equal to the task.
Any idea who would be interested in being speaker?
/undies a little bit slightly, but you know the Cons are gonna all vote in Harper's interest because when do they ever do anything else but that?
Saggio, I'm so confused. So the non-confidence measure says that the House agrees with the report that says that the government is in contempt of Parliament, but the actual vote to officially declare them in contempt of Parliament won't be happening?
Double edit: Oh goddammit, we're going to lose the generic drug bill AGAIN. @#$@#$
hippofant on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I am mildly amused that with this election, the Copyright Bill would have died on paper a few handful of times now.
I guess the CPC really wanted to ensure they'd get a stalwart replacement for Day, though the extent to which they seemed to go given the allegations is hilarious: "You need 25 local member signatures, but we're not going to let you have access to the member list. Have fun."
Anyone know the status of Michael Chong's private member motion?
Is it going to die here?
According to this and another news article I found elsewhere, the committee doesn't have a report back until April 6th and it's uncertain they'd even meet that date.
So unfortunately it looks like it's going to die quite early.
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
It's kinda funny, but the whole "UBB/Cell Phone bills are too high!/Lack of Competition" thing that's going on, might just be one of those types of issues.
Playing the devil's advocate here but to the majority of Canadians the Cons looked like they stepped up and quashed that pretty hard.
Well, they delayed it... Big Telco is still trying to push it through.
Fuck, even if the UBB was stopped for the time being, Canadians are still getting raped in the ass for regular land line and cable TV prices.
Why don't you go and talk to a victim of anal rape before you compare it to the oh-so-dreary burden of paying 30 dollars a month more then the people south of the border from us.
Why don't you go and talk to a victim of anal rape before you compare it to the oh-so-dreary burden of paying 30 dollars a month more then the people south of the border from us.
Why don't you avoid jumping at people for using figures of speech?
Posts
Oh I get it... They can do a vote of no confidence when they're displeased. They need to sort their shit out before they do that if they really want to change anything though.
Well, yes. The government cannot govern without the confidence of the house and if they piss off the majority to the point where they simply reject the budget, well we need a new government.
Well, no, the NDP members were elected to vote on NDP values and policies, and if the budget is not sufficiently onside with that, they shouldn't vote for it.
Wash, rinse, repeat. What number of proposed budgets are we at right now?
That's a pretty good question. I just hope you have a good definition of "un-propaganda'd" that allows for hearing why it is a "giant fuck you" in each of the various opposing parties own words, otherwise you are just taking the word of various political pundits and lobby groups aka think tanks.
IMHO, if you are willing to accept it, the budget as proposed was a giant middle finger because the Conservatives knew that the opposing parties were going to take them to task for the many investigations into their disregard for parliamentary democracy - can you blame em? The government was caught lying to our elected Members of Parliament and that was only the latest flip of the bird from them in a very long list of bird flips. The Conservatives would rather go into a election claiming it was because of the other parties not working with them on the proposed budget when in fact the Conservatives didn't send negotiators when they presented the budget to the other parties for review, they sent ultimatums. Its like they figured "Hey, we got caught in contempt of parliament, we know that we are going to get caught in the "In&Out" funding fraud later and we don't think that the Canadian people are going to fall for another prorogue on the eve of a non-confidence vote, lets double down and go for all the marbles by submitting a budget we know they won't be able to support and if they do they will look like fools for not calling us on it! Start up the propaganda machines, we're going to an election boys!"
So, what was actually in the budget that was so offensive? The budget presented basicly cut public services and regulation across the board compared to the projections of what was needed to keep them viable, going the opposite way from what the other parties were asking for, while giving those same tax dollars to corporations that are seeing record profits in the form of tax breaks. How in the hell were they supposed to bring that back to their party membership and convince them they did the right thing by voting for a budget like that? If you want to read the budget as presented by Conservative Minister of Finance Flaherty for yourself because my summary is ridiculously simplistic or my summary was just plain wrong, here ya go: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/home-accueil-eng.html
I would like to point out again that thinking our election process is bull shit plays right into the Conservative's hands, who do you think benefits the most when there is a low voter turn out? Why do you suppose the Conservatives are so very heavily in favour of American style attack ads convincing us to vote against the other guy in recent years compared to policy presentation adverts set in a positive light of why we should vote for them? Why do you suppose the message the Conservatives are trying to sling is fear mongering that the other parties will wreck the economy?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
He's just skipping the step where the Cons win another minority government--the assumed (by many) outcome of this election.
I would say that, yes, if you do not have the support of enough Canadians to form a majority government, this is exactly how things should work. Keep making budgets that are clearly unsuitable to the opposition parties and keep going to elections or start working with the opposition parties to find a budget what will be passed. That's the whole point of the game with minority governments.
So the laundry list of "stupid things Conservatives have done" is extensive, and this is kinda the straw the broke the camel's back. I can dig it. And when you make it about the budget, which is clearly what is being attempted here, that plays into the Cons' hands because, let's face it, we've had a pretty good run economically while they've been at the helm.
I still don't see this resulting in any sort of change on the hill, sadly...
At least this way, the opposition parties are free to attack/use the budget measures in a campaign without looking like hypocrites.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
What is it going to take to break through this wall of apathy and ignorance that is letting a minority government bully the other MPs [around] like it is a majority that doesn't have [to] consult the other MPs?
I really hope the other parties do include coalition in their platforms, get some cooperation going for a change.
It's kinda funny, but the whole "UBB/Cell Phone bills are too high!/Lack of Competition" thing that's going on, might just be one of those types of issues.
http://www.thestar.com/article/413170 <--- That was from 3 years ago. This is what happened in a bit more detail:
09-10: -$33.7 billion
10-11: -$29.8 billion
11-12: -$13.0 billion
12-13: -$ 7.3 billion
13-14: +$0.7 billion
Budget 2010 then predicted the following:
09-10: -$53.8 billion
10-11: -$49.2 billion
11-12: -$27.6 billion
12-13: -$17.5 billion
13-14: -$8.5 billion
14-15: -$1.8 billion
And we haven't been having a good run economically because of the Conservatives, that was thanks to Paul Martin when he was Minister of Finance and his banking regulations. We've only been on a good run by comparison to how hard a hit the world took when the various kinds of "bankers" in the US got social assistance instead of going to prison and having their assets seized, you know, kinda like what the banks did families who had a mortgage with them (not just the bad mortgages either). When you think of our good run economically, it really should be the Liberals listening to the other parties and co-opting their deficit and debt reduction policies even though they had a majority government at the time.
The reverberations of Conservative minority government deregulation will have impacts on our future just like it did for the US under Bush's 8 years as well. Will we have oil, gas, and coal related enviromental disasters (thus economic disasters)? A banking crisis? Tainted food products? Inadequate natural disaster preparation and relief? Lack of doctors, nurses, medical techs, paramedics, and researchers? Failing infrastructure? More people in prison over petty drug prohibition offences? Who knows, but personally I think Canada has suffered enough under Harper and his ilk already, my turning point was the first prorogue to kill the coalition in the cradle.
Also, if the Conservatives were completely serious about avoiding an election, they still are able to amend the budget. They have refused to do so.
Playing the devil's advocate here but to the majority of Canadians the Cons looked like they stepped up and quashed that pretty hard.
Well, they delayed it... Big Telco is still trying to push it through.
Well, when Martin won in 2004, the Conservative Party was pretty close to the practical minimum with regard to their seat count. They have roughly 50 safe seats in the West and about 40 in Ontario (seats where they have historically won an absolute majority of the votes), so their floor is roughly 90 seats. They actually lost close to 9% of their popular support from the combined level enjoyed by the Alliance and the PCs. By way of comparison, the Liberals have around 60 safe seats across the country (same definition, seats where they historically win an absolute majority), the Bloc has about 40 and the NDP has about 10. So in any election there are really only 108 seats that are actually "in play".
For the Liberals to form a majority government, they need to win 90% of those contested seats. The Conservatives need to win just under 60%. Any split that falls roughly along the lines of the parties proportional levels of support is going to return another Conservative minority. A three way coalition with the Bloc, NDP and Liberals isn't really tenable for any significant length of time - the only reason such an idea would ever be floated is if the continued existence of these parties was on the line (which it was with the poison pill legislation regarding funding of political parties). The realistic option for a coalition government is if the combined seat count of the Liberals and the NDP is 155 seats. In order to do that, both the Liberals AND the NDP would need to increase their seat counts by about 50% from where they stand currently. The Liberals might be able to this, as they are pretty close to their floor of support right now, but for both parties to do so would be much less likely, as they not only have to increase their counts but also cannot do so at the other party's expense. It's theoretically possible for them to form a minority coalition, but that would be a much harder sell and much less stable.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Edit: For instance, the riding I reside in has elected a Conservative MP, James Lunney. He has been elected a number of times. Any suggestions on what I can do to make sure that my fellow Canadians get the message in this riding to not elect a Conservative again?
For it to effect this election, there would probably need be new information pertaining to one of the current scandals, or some new scandal, that tarnished the Conservative brand with voters in those ridings. The Liberals or NDP would need to then be on the ball enough to capitalize on it. The problem here being that usually they aren't - the folks running for them in these ridings are sacrificial lambs thrown up simply to have some one contesting the seat (because there's also the chance that something specific to that seat might happen, like the incumbent getting arrested for some reason, that would upset the local status quo).
If the Liberals or NDP were gaining support more gradually, you might see some of these seats move from "safe" to "contested", with maybe the odd upset victory. That wouldn't be in time for this election, but would effect future elections.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The Liberals haven't won Quebec since Trudeau in 1980. Their "Quebec wing" collapsed after 1984 and Mulroney's huge win, followed by all of the constitutional discord of the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the last party before the Bloc to win a majority of Quebec seats was the PCs in 1988.
This poll appeared in the newpaper Le Droit a few days ago.
Gatineau also elected Liberals more often than not troughout it's history but it wasn't as much of a stronghold than Hull.
This is an event we need to learn from. Here's how.
Public reviews of Canada's latest reactors - http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/licenseesapplicants/powerplants/newapplicants/vendorpreproject/status.cfm
Dang.
Dang.
It's not a question of winning Quebec as a whole, it is a matter of having a core of safe seats in the province. As it stands now, they don't. The Quebec wing also doesn't simply refer to MPs who are elected from that province, but also the party organizers, fundraisers, etc.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
And guess who will be appointing him/her.
/diesontheinside
I know what you mean. And it's wrong to say that the Liberals have a "core of safe seats" in the province. They don't. They have Montreal, and areas where there are concentrations of Anglos and non-Francophones.
Really, the Liberals only have three areas where they are strong in the country: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. You can't form a national government that way.
Speaker is elected by MPs through a secret ballot, not appointed. Hopefully the parties will be smart and elect someone equal to the task.
Any idea who would be interested in being speaker?
/undies a little bit slightly, but you know the Cons are gonna all vote in Harper's interest because when do they ever do anything else but that?
Saggio, I'm so confused. So the non-confidence measure says that the House agrees with the report that says that the government is in contempt of Parliament, but the actual vote to officially declare them in contempt of Parliament won't be happening?
Double edit: Oh goddammit, we're going to lose the generic drug bill AGAIN. @#$@#$
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Is it going to die here?
I guess the CPC really wanted to ensure they'd get a stalwart replacement for Day, though the extent to which they seemed to go given the allegations is hilarious: "You need 25 local member signatures, but we're not going to let you have access to the member list. Have fun."
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
According to this and another news article I found elsewhere, the committee doesn't have a report back until April 6th and it's uncertain they'd even meet that date.
So unfortunately it looks like it's going to die quite early.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Fuck, even if the UBB was stopped for the time being, Canadians are still getting raped in the ass for regular land line and cable TV prices.
MWO: Adamski
Why don't you avoid jumping at people for using figures of speech?