The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper

[CD]

Less government = good

More government = bad

Ahhh... finally, someone who comes out in favour of SMS.

Apologies for the sidetrack -- figured we should have something aviation-related in the thread.

[bluemic]

Not a fan of any of the leaders, but...

Any Canadian politician who believes that a coalition government - one that requires a separatist party's support - will serve the best interests of Canada should be seeking a new line of work.

mic

[dagger]

Not a fan of any of the leaders, but...

Any Canadian politician who believes that a coalition government - one that requires a separatist party's support - will serve the best interests of Canada should be seeking a new line of work.

mic

The fact is that the current economy imposes a short-term set of circumstances in which all political parties can find common cause. Everyone seems to agree on the need for stimulus, with much of that from temporary EI measures and infrastructure spending. The Bloc can't even push its usual agenda because the PQ in Quebec has promised that there won't be a referendum in the next mandate if it wins the election in that province (though it trails in the polls).

So I don't see a problem for a coalition to identify a short list of common priorities that would launch an economic defence/recovery program which would be 95% of the focus of such a government for the next year.

Beyond that, it's doubtful that a coalition could exist for long.

[rudder]

Harper and his gaggle of pseudo republican cohorts are entirely out of touch with their own political reality. They are trying to treat a renewed minority mandate as a de facto majority mandate.

Dear Steve - 62.4% of the ballots cast just seven short weeks ago were against the Conservative agenda.

The Conservatives will make the next week about attacking the parties that secured more support than they did. I doubt that they will change any minds, and their own supporters do not get to vote twice so the message is wasted on them.

Eventually they will realise that the prize that they covet so badly has likely slipped out of reach and it is because of their own lust for unchallenged power.

[mrlupin]

GateKeeper,

I pay around 20G in taxes every year. If 1.95$ from my taxes can go to the party I selected, the party I choose , I think it is worth it. If you feel the best place for you to save 1.95 on taxes is from the cancellation of this program....well that is your perogative but look around you... there's mush bigger waste to go after. The failure of the conservative supporters to see any problem in the cancellation of this is alarming. Are most conservatives like this? Do they fully support EVERY policy or action the blue party does without questioning? Parties always need financing and when your party is not in power, it is always harder to get funds.

I know the green party will not form the next government but if my 1.95$ can go towards helping to strengthen the party, to put them in a better position come next election, then I feel it gives some sort of substance to my vote. Why should your vote mean more then mine? We voted differently, your vote counts because you elected the party who got the most seats, my vote doesn't count, the party I voted for got 7% of the major vote and yet got no seats. Do you think that is fair? The 1.95$ is my contribution to the party I choose.

We an electoral system where it is possible for a party to get 7% of the vote yet have no seats and for another party to get 37% of the vote and get 46% of the seats. A proportional electoral system would solve some of that but it would probably spell the end of majority governments and the I don't think the major parties want that, they want power not fair representation....

As for your comment:

Less government = good

More government = bad

Less government control of the US banks did wonders didn't it? Extremes aren't good... a more centric approach seem better....

[rudder]

The fact is that the current economy imposes a short-term set of circumstances in which all political parties can find common cause. Everyone seems to agree on the need for stimulus, with much of that from temporary EI measures and infrastructure spending. The Bloc can't even push its usual agenda because the PQ in Quebec has promised that there won't be a referendum in the next mandate if it wins the election in that province (though it trails in the polls).

So I don't see a problem for a coalition to identify a short list of common priorities that would launch an economic defence/recovery program which would be 95% of the focus of such a government for the next year.

Beyond that, it's doubtful that a coalition could exist for long.

A brief coalition will either be a huge success or a huge failure. And this possibility is exactly why the Conservatives are now concerned about the opportunity that their arrogance has created.

If the centre/left (Lib/NDP) can demonstate that they can work together as a coalition, it is not a large step to realising that coalescing the two parties a la Reform/Conservatives in order to win the seats necessary to govern in a parliamentary democracy is an inevitable outcome. Why else would the elder statesman of the parties be meeting.

The merged parties might spill a few right leaning Liberals, but they would almost certainly have the critical mass to form a majority government in the next election. When economic times are tough support does not flow to fiscal conservatives.

Thank you Steve for creating this opportunity to be replaced.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Conehead, that would be a foreign SEA, not a foreign land.

Mr Lupin, you have the ability to contribute up to $1100 to the party of your choice. If you want to contribute $1.95, you can do that now.

What of those who felt there was no candidate worthy of their vote, what rationale is there for their tax dollars going to political parties?

What if you voted Liberal but in two years have decided the Greens are your choice: your vote means that the Liberals still get $1.95 annually until the next election, regardless of whether you still support them.

$30 million might not seem like a lot, but the alleged cut to arts funding ($42 million, I think?) was trumpeted by Atwood et al as the coming of the four horsemen. That the cut was accompanied by a $140 million increase to the Canada Council was, not surprisingly, overlooked by said et al.

If you want to support a party, do it, but don't demand that everyone else be forced to do the same.

[bluemic]

The Bloc is holding a really good trump card - possibly the best one they've ever been dealt. And all the chips are on the table. Yet some don't believe they'll play that card? Some actually think Mr. Duceppe will put the country (Canada) first and NOT use this to The Bloc's advantage?!?!

Wow! Where'd I put that bridge...

May I respectfully suggest some research on the word: "politician"?

mic

[dagger]

Conehead, that would be a foreign SEA, not a foreign land.

Mr Lupin, you have the ability to contribute up to $1100 to the party of your choice. If you want to contribute $1.95, you can do that now.

What of those who felt there was no candidate worthy of their vote, what rationale is there for their tax dollars going to political parties?

What if you voted Liberal but in two years have decided the Greens are your choice: your vote means that the Liberals still get $1.95 annually until the next election, regardless of whether you still support them.

$30 million might not seem like a lot, but the alleged cut to arts funding ($42 million, I think?) was trumpeted by Atwood et al as the coming of the four horsemen. That the cut was accompanied by a $140 million increase to the Canada Council was, not surprisingly, overlooked by said et al.

If you want to support a party, do it, but don't demand that everyone else be forced to do the same.

This is not the point:

The current system was a compromise to remove the vested interests of corporations and unions from funding parties for the sake of gaining favored treatment.

It is a fundamental part of our democracy as currently constituted.

This doesn't mean it can't be changed, only that it is not something to be used as a wedge issue for partisan advantage in the middle of an economic crisis. Change should be studied and debated, and then phased in.

I cannot think of a situation in any western democracy where significant campaign finance reform has not been the subject of protracted debate, followed by the passage of legislation. This is how the current system came about, and it is how McCain-Feingold became law in the States. It was not ramrodded through by the governing party to shame/shackle the opposition.

The Tories did not run on it. They did not even include it in the Throne Speech that passed on Thursday night.

It was not policy-making, it was a gambit.

Today I have not seen one editorial in any major newspaper that doesn't think this is wrong on the timing and the approach (the substance and process for reform is another matter most feel can be taken up, as a separate issue, at a different time).

The National Post is calling for Harper to drop the issue now.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-to-die-on.aspx

The Calgary Herald is calling for Harper to drop the issue now.

La Presse is calling for Harper to drop the issue now.

In the British Parliamentary system, governing in a minority parliament confers on the party in power an obligation to make the minority work until it is demonstrated that it cannot work. Since reform of electoral financing was not an election or Throne Speech issue, the government cannot claim that the parliament is unworkable; it can only do so if it show that the issues it underlined as priorities in the Throne Speech cannot be enacted in any reasonable form.

So you can argue the substance of campaign finance reform until you are blue in the face, but that is not the issue outside of the narrowest or narrow Conservative partisan circles. The abuse of parliament and the abuse of the mandate given the Conservatives on Oct 14 has become the issue, and that is as clear as clear can be to almost anyone but Stephen Harper and those who genuflect in his presence.

[Fido]

This is not the point:

.

It is exactly the point.

[mrlupin]

Conehead, that would be a foreign SEA, not a foreign land.

Mr Lupin, you have the ability to contribute up to $1100 to the party of your choice. If you want to contribute $1.95, you can do that now.

What of those who felt there was no candidate worthy of their vote, what rationale is there for their tax dollars going to political parties?

What if you voted Liberal but in two years have decided the Greens are your choice: your vote means that the Liberals still get $1.95 annually until the next election, regardless of whether you still support them.

$30 million might not seem like a lot, but the alleged cut to arts funding ($42 million, I think?) was trumpeted by Atwood et al as the coming of the four horsemen. That the cut was accompanied by a $140 million increase to the Canada Council was, not surprisingly, overlooked by said et al.

If you want to support a party, do it, but don't demand that everyone else be forced to do the same.

Afternoon Hadji Ramjet,

Most of us pay taxes. Our taxes go to the various projects the governing party sees fit to fund. I pay X amount of taxes and all of that is controlled by a party I did not want in power. If X=20,000 then the Conservatives, which are the ruling party, controls that. I see no problem whatsoever with giving 1.95$ per annum to the party I voted for. The person who didn't vote.... well I don't know what happens to his 1.95$.

I also understand the fact that I can donate to my party. I have the means to do it, not everyone does though. If you could research who donates to political parties, you would see that most people would be categorized in the category of haves and not "have-not" . A system where the rich get a say and the poor don't is somewhat flawed isn't it??

Also, Go back to one of my previous posts on this thread where I explain how the Liberals used this "ability to contribute 1100$" to get their funding.... I have proof the Liberals did it (I was the one contributing with money they gave me), I don't that the Conservatives do it but following the various reporting of their failure to abide by the electoral rules on funding, I question their methods as well...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/15/inandout.html

[FA@AC]

Thank you Steve for creating this opportunity to be replaced.

I'm not sure if you're referring to replacement of Harper's government or to the idea that the Conservatives might soon decide to replace Harper. Harper's mouth probably cost his party their chance to win a majority when he blew their chances of picking up seats in Quebec. Two weeks into this parliament, Harper appears to have overplayed his hand bigtime. Even if his government does survives his latest miscalculation, you have to wonder how long it will be before party members start calling his leadership into question.

[handyman]

Thank you Steve for creating this opportunity to be replaced.

When will the Loser's realize that they LOST the recent election! Now you want to waste millions more of the taxpayer's money to determine what we already know.

[Fido]

Canada has no economic crisis.

Canada is not going into recession.

How do I know? Because the politicians are arguing over $30 million dollars to line their own pockets.

[FA@AC]

When will the Loser's realize that they LOST the recent election! Now you want to waste millions more of the taxpayer's money to determine what we already know.

Nobody disputes the election result. The current bruhaha is entirely of the PM's making, and if it results in the defeat of his government you'll only have him to thank.

[rudder]

When will the Loser's realize that they LOST the recent election! 

When the Conservatives start to govern like a MINORITY (which is all they got after a wasted $300M). A MINORITY mandate from the electorate is in reality direction to act as a coalition with support from enough members of parliament from other parties to pass legislation.

There are a dozen articles out there, including from conservative authors and publications, questioning the lack of situational awareness demonstrated by the MINORITY Conservative goverment.

We all know what Steve really wants. Perhaps third time will be the charm

[Guest rattler]

Sure glad we don't behave like some do when they don't like the results of an election. At least we still fight politics only with words and I hope that will continue to be the norm in Canada.

Riots 'kill hundreds in Nigeria' 

 

Hundreds of people are reported to have been killed in central Nigeria after Christians and Muslims clashed over the result of a local election.

A Muslim charity in the town of Jos says it collected more than 300 bodies, and fatalities are also expected from other ethnic groups, mainly Christians.

There is no official confirmation yet, and figures are notoriously unreliable in Nigeria, says the BBC's Alex Last.

Police have imposed a 24-hour curfew and the army is patrolling the streets.

They have been given orders to shoot on sight in an effort to quell the bloodshed, some of the most serious in Nigeria in recent years.

The Nigerian Red Cross says at least 10,000 people have fled their homes.

Contested election

The mostly Christian-backed governing party, the People's Democratic Party, was declared to have won the state elections in Plateau, of which Jos is the capital city.

The result was contested by the opposition All Nigeria People's Party, which has support from Muslims.

Violence started on Thursday night as groups of angry youths burnt tyres on the roads over reports of election rigging.

It expanded along ethnic and religious fault lines, with mobs burning homes, churches and mosques on Friday and Saturday.

Bodies from the Muslim Hausa community were brought into the central mosque compound from the streets where they had been killed.

The local imam says their number is "in the hundreds".

Any Christian casualties would have been taken to the hospital morgues, but no clear figure has emerged for the number of their fatalities.

Despite the overnight curfew, groups in some areas took to the streets again, as soon as patrols had passed by.

Troubled past

In 2001, more than 1,000 people died in religious clashes in the city, situated in Nigeria's fertile "middle belt" that separates the Muslim north from the predominantly Christian south.

And in 2004, a state of emergency was declared in Plateau State after more than 200 Muslims were killed in the town of Yelwa in attacks by Christian militia.

Correspondents say communal violence in Nigeria is complex, but it often boils down to competition for resources such as land between those that see themselves as indigenous versus the more recent settlers.

In Plateau, Christians are regarded as being indigenous and Hausa-speaking Muslims the settlers.

The unrest is the most serious of its kind in Africa's most populous nation, roughly equally split between Christians and Muslims, since President Umaru Yar'Adua took power in May 2007.

[Steam Driven]

Why do Political Parties require the $1.95 per vote? How did Maurice Duplessis (Le Chef), the CCF or the Social Credit Party of British Columbia get started and stay funded?

They had to get out and actually engage those that would give them their support. They had to get out of the office and campaign to achieve the support required. They had to come up with idea's that the people would actually get behind an support.

They could not just sit in Ottawa, dream up new ways to spend our money and have the party receive a paycheque from we the taxpayer's...

It was, and is, a lot of work. It was done in the past, before Electronic Funds Transfer, before the internet and text messaging. Before Television for that matter. The Politicians of today have many more means of communicating and attracting funding. The trick is to come up with idea's that resonate with we the voter's. Idea's that will engage Canadians and get us to open our pocket books and use that Political Tax Contribution Deduction for the Party that we can support.

Thing is, it's too much work. Why come up with new idea's and solutions when you can collect your $1.95 a vote and fiddle while Rome burns?...

[Guest rattler]

Here is one change that I hope is passed and soon. We need the skilled workers much more than we need those without skills. Discrimination or just common sense, you judge (I see the opposition parties already have).

Canada plans to fast-track skilled immigrants

By CHARMAINE NORONHA – 17 hours ago

TORONTO (AP) — Canada's government said Friday that it plans to fast-track the immigration process for skilled workers in high-demand occupations, drawing criticism from the country's opposition leaders that the new rules are unfair.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said applications for immigrants in occupations such as health, skilled trades, finance and resource extraction will be processed within a year, compared to a process that can take up to six years under the old system. Geochemists, speech language pathologists, university professors, plumbers and chefs will also be fast-tracked.

"The recent steps this government has taken to improve our immigration system will help ensure that Canada remains competitive internationally and responsive to labor market needs domestically," Kenney said.

Opposition leaders argued the changes by the Conservative government would create two classes of immigrants, leaving less-skilled workers stuck at the back of the line.

New Democrat immigration critic Olivia Chow called the government's classification of high-demand jobs absurd.

"One on the list is financial services. Didn't I just notice that there's a huge number of people being laid off in the financial services?" Chow said.

Chow also criticized the government's plan to double the number of temporary foreign workers in five years, saying such a move would drive down wages.

"It's bad for the Canadian economy and it's bad for (the workers), because they cannot bring in their families and often are open to exploitation and abuse," said Chow.

The Liberals drew parallels between the current reforms and an effort by the Conservative government of the 1950s to favor skilled workers — a move that created a rift between the government and some ethnic communities. The government then backed away from the proposed reforms.

[handyman]

Yes, we all know that the NDP and Liberals would rather have refugees then skilled immigrants. Wouldn't want to make Canada better just a refugee haven.

[Guest rattler]

Yes, we all know that the NDP and Liberals would rather have refugees then skilled immigrants. Wouldn't want to make Canada better just a refugee haven.

I wonder is it would because they would be expected to vote for the Liberals (or has that passed) ?

[dagger]

I wonder is it would because they would be expected to vote for the Liberals (or has that passed) ?

Wasn't it the Tories who worked the ethnics especially hard the past two years? Some of you should sucking on the teat long enough to realize that the Conservatives do it, too.

http://re-canada.blogspot.com/2008/10/cons...c-outreach.html

[Guest rattler]

Wasn't it the Tories who worked the ethnics especially hard the past two years? Some of you should sucking on the teat long enough to realize that the Conservatives do it, too.

http://re-canada.blogspot.com/2008/10/cons...c-outreach.html

So that is where some of the traditional Liberal voters went.

And the sucking on the teat reference means ????????????

Good to see that you have lost none of your renowned debating skills. When stuck, resort to remarks that have nothing to do with the debate / rebuttal / thread (whoops got stuck in that rut toooooooo )

[rudder]

And now the Conservative braintrust is looking for the reverse gears -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

Harper has exposed himself and his party -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

[Guest rattler]

Harper has exposed himself and his party -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

Did he at least issue trench coats to all ??

And on the flip side, it seems that the Liberals have also exposed themselves.

Kelly McParland: Liberals stage a coup with three heads and no leader

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-no-leader.aspx