Canadian Conservative Majority!-Page 2: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2

May 3, 2011 9:57 p.m. Stealthtercel Reader

No, I didn't say it wasn't legitimate, I said I get it: this is how the system works. But look at the numbers: exactly the same number of people voted for the Liberals and the NDP together as voted for the Conservatives. (Popular vote totals, to one decimal place, the last time I looked.)

The new government is once again headed by a guy who wants to spend billions of dollars on new prisons when crime rates are going down, and wants cops to have a say in picking candidates for judgeships. Personally, I find both of those ideas outrageous. His last government was the first one in our history to be found in contempt of Parliament... and that was BEFORE he had the votes to get his own way. How much contempt do y'all think you'll be seeing now?

If you find him the best choice to lead the country, I'm glad you'll have the chance to watch him in action. The country survived that ass Trudeau and I'm sure we'll survive this. But I think it'll be a nastier place to live for a while.
May 3, 2011 10:31 p.m. NGTD HalfDork

Okay, I got ya.

We'll see what the next few years brings us.

I am not a fan of proportional representation and that is what the whole popular vote discussion heads down the path toward. It leads to parties like the BQ having all the power because you end up in a series of minority governments. Look at Italy and Israel - the power brokers are fringe parties.
May 4, 2011 4:56 a.m. ZOO SuperDork

Minority goverments force consensus -- and are the only true representation of the people. I'd support legislation that only led to minority governments because of this.
May 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. Trans_Maro Dork

ZOO wrote:

Minority goverments force consensus -- and are the only true representation of the people. I'd support legislation that only led to minority governments because of this.

In theory.

Just like communism is a great idea, in theory.

The problem is, the parties just start arguing with each other for the sake of it and nothing gets done.

Half the time, more like all the time, the opposition votes agains something just to oppose it rather than take the time to figure out if it's going to do any good or not.

The biggest problem is, the folks who are capable of running the country are too busy doing their own thing.

If there was a candidate who's platform was "I'm going to lie, cheat, steal and pillage my wiggly black guts out" I'd probably vote for him, at least he's honest about it. Just berkeley me good and get on with running the country. It's probably take less time than the conventional method too.

Shawn
May 4, 2011 9:37 a.m. NGTD HalfDork

ZOO wrote:

Minority goverments force consensus -- and are the only true representation of the people. I'd support legislation that only led to minority governments because of this.

No they force 4 elections in 7 years, short-term thinking and give all the power to special interest groups.

No thanks.
May 4, 2011 9:49 a.m. DeadSkunk HalfDork

NGTD,
If Harper changes the methods for funding election campaigns you'll have your share of special interest groups in short order. They're known as lobbyists and they'll carry way too much clout.
May 4, 2011 10:26 a.m. HiTempguy Dork

DeadSkunk wrote:

NGTD,
If Harper changes the methods for funding election campaigns you'll have your share of special interest groups in short order. They're known as lobbyists and they'll carry way too much clout.

Hmm, from what I understood, it was being looked at as only allowing citizens to donate money to their campaigns (because in essence, the $2 per vote subsidy comes from the pocket of taxpayers who may not support that party). Why would the Conservatives getting rid of the per-vote subsidy change this?
May 4, 2011 10:53 a.m. DeadSkunk HalfDork

I might have misunderstood the news broadcast I saw then. The Canadian news doesn't get a lot of airplay here. If he's only talking about eliminating the $2/vote taxpayer "contribution" that's not a huge deal, but if private contributions are allowed,then I'd be watching for how much ,and from who. Anyone allowed to donate a big cheque will become the influence peddlar. If he proposes contribution limits it might be fine. The $2 per vote was created to reflect the fact that a given party did have the support of a portion of the electorate. Those who don't bother to vote pay anyway, I suppose. There's no perfect system,I just prefer the Canadian way to the free for all here. $300 million pales in comparison to the election spending in America. I wonder if election spending counts in the GDP? Next year the economy may appear to recover !!
May 4, 2011 11:21 a.m. HiTempguy Dork

DeadSkunk wrote:

I might have misunderstood the news broadcast I saw then. The Canadian news doesn't get a lot of airplay here. If he's only talking about eliminating the $2/vote taxpayer "contribution" that's not a huge deal, but if private contributions are allowed,then I'd be watching for how much ,and from who. Anyone allowed to donate a big cheque will become the influence peddlar. If he proposes contribution limits it might be fine. The $2 per vote was created to reflect the fact that a given party did have the support of a portion of the electorate. Those who don't bother to vote pay anyway, I suppose. There's no perfect system,I just prefer the Canadian way to the free for all here. $300 million pales in comparison to the election spending in America. I wonder if election spending counts in the GDP? Next year the economy may appear to recover !!

I think you'd have to understand that Canadian's would probably storm parliament if business/lobbyists were allowed to bankroll our elected parties.

And yes, at the moment, that is what they want to get rid of (the $2). In case you are wondering, the Conservatives FAR outstrip the other parties in private member donations, hence why it works in their favour (explaining this so it doesn't seem I am biased)

The problem with it is that if you are donating $2 per party, theoretically, that could be up to $60 million dollars in voter's money that goes to parties. That's a lot of money, especially if it's "your" tax money because plenty of people don't pay taxes in Canada. It's kind of hit and miss IMO, I probably would have kept it to be honest!
May 4, 2011 11:30 a.m. NGTD HalfDork

In reply to DeadSkunk:

I am not a fan of all of Harper's plans. In fact, I am not a fan of all of the proposed plans of any of the parties.

Yes, there are risks to the removal of that funding because they have to replace the money from somewhere and the risk is that it comes from lobby groups and corporations that influence policy.

People need to give people a chance to govern.

I am very concerned about where this last election (and the previous 2 or so years) may be taking us. We may have seen a fundamental shift away from parties in the political centre and moved toward a Left vs. Right that is more aligned with U.S. politics, which does not thrill me. We also seem to be reinforcing regional splits (East Coast - actually mixed, Quebec - mostly NDP, Ontario - mixed but heavily Conservative, West - Conservative except for BC where there is more of a mix)
May 4, 2011 11:38 a.m. DeadSkunk HalfDork

But I do understand Canadians, I am one ! And my only problem with Harper is that I think he'll do whatever he wants, even if the population were to storm Parliament Hill, and they won't. We're way too nice for that ! It'll be interesting to see what things are like for the next 4 years. Both Harper, and Layton may have to convince their party members to gravitate a little more to the center, because both parties will need that voting group to have a hope of forming a majority government 4-5 years from now. And I suspect they both would do it ,for no other reason than to negate any possible resurrection of the Liberal Party !
May 4, 2011 11:46 a.m. DeadSkunk HalfDork

NGTD wrote:

In reply to DeadSkunk:

I am not a fan of all of Harper's plans. In fact, I am not a fan of all of the proposed plans of any of the parties.

Yes, there are risks to the removal of that funding because they have to replace the money from somewhere and the risk is that it comes from lobby groups and corporations that influence policy.

People need to give people a chance to govern.

I am very concerned about where this last election (and the previous 2 or so years) may be taking us. We may have seen a fundamental shift away from parties in the political centre and moved toward a Left vs. Right that is more aligned with U.S. politics, which does not thrill me. We also seem to be reinforcing regional splits (East Coast - actually mixed, Quebec - mostly NDP, Ontario - mixed but heavily Conservative, West - Conservative except for BC where there is more of a mix)

I agree 100%. I would not want to see the kind of partisan politics we have here spread north. I've often told my US friends and neighbours that this country needs a viable 3rd party to keep the GOP and Dems a little more responsive to the people! Again, there's no perfect system, but there are some that are much,much worse than either of the ones I've lived under.
May 4, 2011 12:09 p.m. HiTempguy Dork

Just for a VERY informative article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

Non-biased, just presents the facts.
May 4, 2011 12:41 p.m. ZOO SuperDork

Trans_Maro wrote:

ZOO wrote:

Minority goverments force consensus -- and are the only true representation of the people. I'd support legislation that only led to minority governments because of this.

In theory.

Just like communism is a great idea, in theory.

The problem is, the parties just start arguing with each other for the sake of it and nothing gets done.

I fundamentally disagree -- we've accomplished plenty during the last years of minority governments. We've had elections (just another form of governemnt stimulus), an escalation in our global military commitments, significant changes to tax laws to the benefits of Canadians (and perhaps their detriment, too). We've also had increased transfer payments to the provinces, and relative stability during a global economic downturn. Much has been done -- all with the hard work of people who have to work together. It's been a good thing for us.

"Nothing gets done" is a myth -- more correctly, "nothing that represents a significant bias towards one end of the political spectrum" gets done. But that's may be a good thing.

If Harper had agreed to work with the other parties during his budget process, we may not have had the election. But, I suspect (and he is a smart man, advised by smart people) that he recognized an opportunity to stand pat, and to get the majority he wanted.

Four years of Conservative rule may be followed by four years of centre-left rule, where everything "done" is "undone". That correction factor is much more immediate and transparent in a minority government, which is why I support them

Absolute power corrupts absolutely . . .