Oh Oh, Spaghettios!
April 20, 2005 3:25 PM Subscribe
In a rare move, the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, will address the nation at 7:45 pm EDT on CTV this Thursday. [mi]
Definitely for the short term, amberglow, although in the long term things are open. :)
posted by shepd at 3:33 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by shepd at 3:33 PM on April 20, 2005
You know, I love the generosity of the chain of command.
Cretien is responsible for the subs; therefore no one is responsible for the subs. I mean, on a practical level, everybody knows that top-level responsibility is symbolic and no one on this side of the Atlantic seems interested in accepting personality responsibility to the point where, say, someone might resign. So accepting responsibility clears your underlings of blame and permits no one to be punished.
I'm starting to think about Canada in the way that I've had to think about the U.S. -- is there nothing that could be done that would result in actual consequences?
Icing on the cake that Martin was finance minister, so he's "symbolically" responsible there, too. Symbolically, at the least.
Anyway, I'll be watching.
posted by dreamsign at 3:37 PM on April 20, 2005
Cretien is responsible for the subs; therefore no one is responsible for the subs. I mean, on a practical level, everybody knows that top-level responsibility is symbolic and no one on this side of the Atlantic seems interested in accepting personality responsibility to the point where, say, someone might resign. So accepting responsibility clears your underlings of blame and permits no one to be punished.
I'm starting to think about Canada in the way that I've had to think about the U.S. -- is there nothing that could be done that would result in actual consequences?
Icing on the cake that Martin was finance minister, so he's "symbolically" responsible there, too. Symbolically, at the least.
Anyway, I'll be watching.
posted by dreamsign at 3:37 PM on April 20, 2005
I can't help but wonder how this would play out if this happened in the States.
A blow job almost cost Clinton his job.
posted by Smooth at 3:43 PM on April 20, 2005
A blow job almost cost Clinton his job.
posted by Smooth at 3:43 PM on April 20, 2005
I'd like to think, given our somewhat more sane perspective on nudity, that the blow job would matter less here and the nigh-embezzlement would mean more.
either way, this will herald another decade at least of citizen screaming over the public purse. more civil servants retiring without being replaced and the extra work just gets spread out or dropped and related programs with, continued use of thirty and forty-year-old office furniture, and ancient computer software, too (my last office was using Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS for goodness sake).
everytime some asshole in government drops a bag of money down a hole, they tighten the noose around everyone else.
posted by dreamsign at 3:50 PM on April 20, 2005
either way, this will herald another decade at least of citizen screaming over the public purse. more civil servants retiring without being replaced and the extra work just gets spread out or dropped and related programs with, continued use of thirty and forty-year-old office furniture, and ancient computer software, too (my last office was using Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS for goodness sake).
everytime some asshole in government drops a bag of money down a hole, they tighten the noose around everyone else.
posted by dreamsign at 3:50 PM on April 20, 2005
For Mefi readers, there's a lot of interesting reading about this here and here. That first link includes word that Parliament will not be prorogued. Given this government's inability to find its ass even with both hands, expect very little in way of news from Mr. Dithers' address.
The smart money is still on a non-confidence vote on May 16, resulting in an election call. Unless, of course, the Governor General has other plans.
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 3:51 PM on April 20, 2005
The smart money is still on a non-confidence vote on May 16, resulting in an election call. Unless, of course, the Governor General has other plans.
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 3:51 PM on April 20, 2005
This sort of thing wouldn't even make the news in the states, Smooth. Where have you been?
posted by jon_kill at 3:52 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by jon_kill at 3:52 PM on April 20, 2005
I humbly point all y'all to Paul Wells' weblog -- he's the back-page columnist for Macleans and, IMHO, the only national political affairs columnist who shouldn't have his feeding tube removed -- and he's got the best roundup on the announcement and the political permutations.
Scott Reid, Paulie Walnuts' flack, says his Big Boss Man will not use the televised speech to announce parliament has been dissolved and an election is on the way. However, a friend who works for a national television newscast says they've been told to get ready to kick out the jams for a May 19 vote (which would work, logistically, with an election call tomorrow night.)
Also, I'd check out Warren Kinsella's blog. He's a long-time Johnny C supporter/master of the dark arts and he's been groin-deep in this muck for years. Yesterday, he charged in front of a parliamentary committee that Martin's two top consiglieries knew all about the sponsorship muck. Today, he's going with the angle that tomorrow's announcement will be for an election; and he's calling a conservative majority to follow.
Oh, and: "'Survivor' is on another channel when Martin speaks. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried."
posted by docgonzo at 3:57 PM on April 20, 2005
Scott Reid, Paulie Walnuts' flack, says his Big Boss Man will not use the televised speech to announce parliament has been dissolved and an election is on the way. However, a friend who works for a national television newscast says they've been told to get ready to kick out the jams for a May 19 vote (which would work, logistically, with an election call tomorrow night.)
Also, I'd check out Warren Kinsella's blog. He's a long-time Johnny C supporter/master of the dark arts and he's been groin-deep in this muck for years. Yesterday, he charged in front of a parliamentary committee that Martin's two top consiglieries knew all about the sponsorship muck. Today, he's going with the angle that tomorrow's announcement will be for an election; and he's calling a conservative majority to follow.
Oh, and: "'Survivor' is on another channel when Martin speaks. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried."
posted by docgonzo at 3:57 PM on April 20, 2005
Suppose for a minute the money was kicked back to the Liberals to save the country. If you look at the sleazy way the Canadian Alliance took over the Conservatives, how their platform is built nail for nail on the American agenda, then add Western and Eastern alienation & almost losing the Québec separatist referendum way back, and you'll see a picture of massive forces dedicated to breaking up Canada, picking clean our natural resources, and installing Star Wars under a Fundie government. Just suppose.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:12 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:12 PM on April 20, 2005
If there's an election in May, the Queen's visit, for Alberta and Saskatchewan's centennials, will be cancelled.
Weapons-Grade Pandemonium: I am totally with you on that. And I'm Albertan. Western alienation my ass.
posted by fossil_human at 4:43 PM on April 20, 2005
Weapons-Grade Pandemonium: I am totally with you on that. And I'm Albertan. Western alienation my ass.
posted by fossil_human at 4:43 PM on April 20, 2005
Americans would be lucky to have a president half as capable as Paul Martin. I hope this scandal passes and he's allowed to continue running the country.
posted by mert at 4:44 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by mert at 4:44 PM on April 20, 2005
And this happens after Monday Report goes on summer hiatus!
posted by QIbHom at 4:49 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by QIbHom at 4:49 PM on April 20, 2005
Damn docgonzo, you beat me to it, I had the link copied to my clipboard and ready to paste.
Frankly, I don't really care if we have another election. I just assumed governments commit fraud by default, regardless where they lie on the spectrum--one of the little quirks of democracy. So naturally, I'll have to mindlessly affirm Rick Mercer's theory that the Liberals will rule Canada forever.
I mean, what choice do I have considering...
- Stephen Harper's hidden agenda (which probably involves the eventual deportation of gays and any non-Anglophone with a smile on their face)
- The Green Party's not-so hidden agenda of bring communism to Canada instead of the much preferable neo-communism that I hear is all the rage abroad these days...
- And Jack Layton's... actually I don't really understand why people don't vote NDP (he seems pretty cool for an old guy) but they don't so I wont either or else I'd just be throwing my vote away.
Maybe I just vote for the Bloc and run away to the eventual Quebec Republic. But I wonder if they'll hate me because I was born there and yet can't speak a word of French.
But I disgress...
posted by haasim at 4:53 PM on April 20, 2005
Frankly, I don't really care if we have another election. I just assumed governments commit fraud by default, regardless where they lie on the spectrum--one of the little quirks of democracy. So naturally, I'll have to mindlessly affirm Rick Mercer's theory that the Liberals will rule Canada forever.
I mean, what choice do I have considering...
- Stephen Harper's hidden agenda (which probably involves the eventual deportation of gays and any non-Anglophone with a smile on their face)
- The Green Party's not-so hidden agenda of bring communism to Canada instead of the much preferable neo-communism that I hear is all the rage abroad these days...
- And Jack Layton's... actually I don't really understand why people don't vote NDP (he seems pretty cool for an old guy) but they don't so I wont either or else I'd just be throwing my vote away.
Maybe I just vote for the Bloc and run away to the eventual Quebec Republic. But I wonder if they'll hate me because I was born there and yet can't speak a word of French.
But I disgress...
posted by haasim at 4:53 PM on April 20, 2005
Well, a Conservative-led Canada is not a Canada I want to live in.
Fortunately, being in Quebec I have the opportunity to vote for a fairly liberal party which isn't the Liberal party. The rest of the country, however, is not so lucky.
Personally I'd rather have corrupt than plain evil any day of the week.
posted by clevershark at 5:42 PM on April 20, 2005
Fortunately, being in Quebec I have the opportunity to vote for a fairly liberal party which isn't the Liberal party. The rest of the country, however, is not so lucky.
Personally I'd rather have corrupt than plain evil any day of the week.
posted by clevershark at 5:42 PM on April 20, 2005
Americans would be lucky to have a president half as capable as Paul Martin.
We did. His name was Bill Clinton.
posted by oaf at 5:54 PM on April 20, 2005
We did. His name was Bill Clinton.
posted by oaf at 5:54 PM on April 20, 2005
You'd vote Bloc, clevershark?
posted by jikel_morten at 5:56 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by jikel_morten at 5:56 PM on April 20, 2005
Personally I'd rather have corrupt than plain evil any day of the week.
A near-perfect summation of why I'm a pinko liberal.
posted by Jimbob at 6:00 PM on April 20, 2005
A near-perfect summation of why I'm a pinko liberal.
posted by Jimbob at 6:00 PM on April 20, 2005
I voted Bloc in Quebec and I would again -- if I wasn't exiled to Ontario.
posted by docgonzo at 6:01 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by docgonzo at 6:01 PM on April 20, 2005
And I think there's some sleight of hand coming in the May provincial election in BC. Stay tuned for an FPP.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:02 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:02 PM on April 20, 2005
Sure. They're socially very liberal, mostly of course because as a province Quebec is considerably more liberal than the rest of the country. And they're pretty clean, as far as political parties go.
Let's face it, voting Conservative in order to send the Liberals a message is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and THEN switching on the garbage disposal machine.
posted by clevershark at 6:03 PM on April 20, 2005
Let's face it, voting Conservative in order to send the Liberals a message is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and THEN switching on the garbage disposal machine.
posted by clevershark at 6:03 PM on April 20, 2005
Layton's already provided (reg. required) the necessary means for the Liberals to avoid the non-confidence and the resulting need for a re-election.
Seriously, with the recent CIBC report (questionable source, I know) regarding the "supposed" lackluster attention for Ontario by the Liberal feds. is yes, a contentious issue but at the same time, the numbers do not lie.
Add to that the recent polls indicating that most Canadians are not in favour of another general election as the sponsorship scandal is primarily being used by the Conservative government to further their own agenda.
posted by purephase at 6:04 PM on April 20, 2005
Seriously, with the recent CIBC report (questionable source, I know) regarding the "supposed" lackluster attention for Ontario by the Liberal feds. is yes, a contentious issue but at the same time, the numbers do not lie.
Add to that the recent polls indicating that most Canadians are not in favour of another general election as the sponsorship scandal is primarily being used by the Conservative government to further their own agenda.
posted by purephase at 6:04 PM on April 20, 2005
haasim, I don't know much about the Green party, but I think you misunderstand them. For example, several ex-progressive conservatives have infiltrated the green party lately (that might just be in Ontario actually).
The NDP is screwed because of the decline of unionism and their own inability to redefine themselves given that reality. I like the idea of the NDP, and I think Jack is okay, but I don't think they have gotten over that fundamental problem yet.
Anyway, if we could just add transferable ballots to Chretien's finance reform and it would all start to get better pretty quickly. It would be so perfect, you could pick the party you want to give the money to as choice one, and then you could strategically pick a candidate to keep the conservatives out second!
posted by Chuckles at 6:06 PM on April 20, 2005
The NDP is screwed because of the decline of unionism and their own inability to redefine themselves given that reality. I like the idea of the NDP, and I think Jack is okay, but I don't think they have gotten over that fundamental problem yet.
Anyway, if we could just add transferable ballots to Chretien's finance reform and it would all start to get better pretty quickly. It would be so perfect, you could pick the party you want to give the money to as choice one, and then you could strategically pick a candidate to keep the conservatives out second!
posted by Chuckles at 6:06 PM on April 20, 2005
In any case it's up to Martin to call the election. None of the parties in the coalition government right now (Libs, Bloc, NDP) would want to take the risk of having the Cons head the next government, so it's pretty unlikely that an election would occur even this year.
posted by clevershark at 6:11 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by clevershark at 6:11 PM on April 20, 2005
Sure. They're socially very liberal,
Oh I know they are...no doubt. I was really only asking if you'd vote for a separatist. Just curious.
Personally I'd rather have corrupt than plain evil any day of the week.
Seconded.
posted by jikel_morten at 6:18 PM on April 20, 2005
Oh I know they are...no doubt. I was really only asking if you'd vote for a separatist. Just curious.
Personally I'd rather have corrupt than plain evil any day of the week.
Seconded.
posted by jikel_morten at 6:18 PM on April 20, 2005
mmm can anyone point an American to some good background info about all this stuff: I'm pretty interested in the "transformation" of the conservative party...
posted by stratastar at 6:31 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by stratastar at 6:31 PM on April 20, 2005
Man, I really wish I understood what half these things mean. This from someone who'd like to someday become a citizen.
Can anyone explain what's going on like they would to a 5 year-old that doesn't understand a lot of basic stuff. How do you dissolve government? Opposition days? Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself? Does anyone else think that's the stupidest thing they've ever heard? And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary? I'm so confused...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:00 PM on April 20, 2005
Can anyone explain what's going on like they would to a 5 year-old that doesn't understand a lot of basic stuff. How do you dissolve government? Opposition days? Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself? Does anyone else think that's the stupidest thing they've ever heard? And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary? I'm so confused...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:00 PM on April 20, 2005
And they're pretty clean, as far as political parties go.
Yes, here is a good example of "clean" political strategy if I've even heard it:
June 27, 2004: "Yes, please, vote for us. Let your voice ring in protest against the Liberal government. You vote will push the bums out, and it will have nothing to do with separation!"
24 hours, and 54 seats later: "Thank you, voters, for giving us this wonderful mandate for separation! We're all glad you fell for it!"
posted by Old Man Wilson at 7:11 PM on April 20, 2005
Yes, here is a good example of "clean" political strategy if I've even heard it:
June 27, 2004: "Yes, please, vote for us. Let your voice ring in protest against the Liberal government. You vote will push the bums out, and it will have nothing to do with separation!"
24 hours, and 54 seats later: "Thank you, voters, for giving us this wonderful mandate for separation! We're all glad you fell for it!"
posted by Old Man Wilson at 7:11 PM on April 20, 2005
C_D: I'll try to fill in some blanks. Maybe some other Canucks can flesh out the details that I've missed.
Dissolving Government: In the current context, the Liberals are a minority government. That means that they do not have a majority of seats in Parliament to pass bills. Generally money bills are considered votes of confidence in the government. Lose a money bill vote and the government falls. The opposition parties are supposedly starting some procedural motions that might force a vote of confidence. If it came to that there is a good chance the Liberals could lose.
Opposition Days: I'm not 100% sure, but I think each opposition party controls one day of debate in Parliament. They are free to set the agenda and decide what is voted on (I might be very off base on this one. Anyone else have a better explanation?)
Sponsorship Ads: The theory was that Quebeckers, after the 1995 referendum, needed to be reminded how much the federal government impacted their day-to-day lives. Money was shoveled to Liberal connected ad firms to spread the gospel. Then things went awry. The end result may sound stupid, but at the time we came within 1% of dividing the country. The government got extremely nervous and decided to take the bull by the horns. The sponsorship program was one response. Another was seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on the rules for any potential separation.
Election Days: They are not fixed in the federal system (although BC does set them provincially). Generally a government can be expected to govern for 4 years from their election. They have a maximum of 5 years to drop the writ. Recently, we have been averaging an election every 3 and half years. With a minority government the chances of a snap election grow. It's been one year since our last election.
Hope that helps.
posted by smcniven at 7:19 PM on April 20, 2005
Dissolving Government: In the current context, the Liberals are a minority government. That means that they do not have a majority of seats in Parliament to pass bills. Generally money bills are considered votes of confidence in the government. Lose a money bill vote and the government falls. The opposition parties are supposedly starting some procedural motions that might force a vote of confidence. If it came to that there is a good chance the Liberals could lose.
Opposition Days: I'm not 100% sure, but I think each opposition party controls one day of debate in Parliament. They are free to set the agenda and decide what is voted on (I might be very off base on this one. Anyone else have a better explanation?)
Sponsorship Ads: The theory was that Quebeckers, after the 1995 referendum, needed to be reminded how much the federal government impacted their day-to-day lives. Money was shoveled to Liberal connected ad firms to spread the gospel. Then things went awry. The end result may sound stupid, but at the time we came within 1% of dividing the country. The government got extremely nervous and decided to take the bull by the horns. The sponsorship program was one response. Another was seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on the rules for any potential separation.
Election Days: They are not fixed in the federal system (although BC does set them provincially). Generally a government can be expected to govern for 4 years from their election. They have a maximum of 5 years to drop the writ. Recently, we have been averaging an election every 3 and half years. With a minority government the chances of a snap election grow. It's been one year since our last election.
Hope that helps.
posted by smcniven at 7:19 PM on April 20, 2005
If the Conservatives got in from a May election, they'd likely be in a minority position, with a really hostile opposition (pissed off Liberals holding the balance, and the Bloc and NDP have little in common with them from a policy standpoint). I'm not sure that would be the worst thing. I don't like the Conservatives, but Liberal graft appeared to become endemic under Chretien.
And yeah, the NDP need to pull their heads out of their asses and do something, the performance has been incredibly lacklustre both Federally and in BC.
posted by Salmonberry at 7:23 PM on April 20, 2005
And yeah, the NDP need to pull their heads out of their asses and do something, the performance has been incredibly lacklustre both Federally and in BC.
posted by Salmonberry at 7:23 PM on April 20, 2005
To clarify smcniven's statement:
"Election Days: They are not fixed in the federal system (although BC does set them provincially)." - The Liberal party in BC (which is conservative as all get out and not linked to the Federal Liberal party) has enacted a law for fixed election dates. Thus the election to come on May 17 (for which the writ dropped yesterday) has been known for a few years. This will be the first such scheduled election in Canada, AFAIK. Since it is provincial legislation, it can be repealed at any time, which would return the situation in BC to that in every other province, similar to the federal system.
posted by birdsquared at 7:31 PM on April 20, 2005
"Election Days: They are not fixed in the federal system (although BC does set them provincially)." - The Liberal party in BC (which is conservative as all get out and not linked to the Federal Liberal party) has enacted a law for fixed election dates. Thus the election to come on May 17 (for which the writ dropped yesterday) has been known for a few years. This will be the first such scheduled election in Canada, AFAIK. Since it is provincial legislation, it can be repealed at any time, which would return the situation in BC to that in every other province, similar to the federal system.
posted by birdsquared at 7:31 PM on April 20, 2005
Can anyone explain what's going on like they would to a 5 year-old that doesn't understand a lot of basic stuff.
I'll do my best...
How do you dissolve government?
It depends who you are.
If you are the prime minister, and you have decided to dissolve the parliament, you go see the Governor General, and ask her to dissolve parliament and set the date of the next election.
If you are a regular member parliament , you may cast a vote against a "confidence motion" which requires the assent of 50%+1 of the House of Commons. If this level of support is not receive, then the prime minister must go visit the GG, and ask her to dissolve parliament (which is not always guaranteed) (The most common of these confidence motions are budgets and Thrones from the Speech. Beyond those two motions, the concept of confidence gets notoriously sketchy)
In this case, the Conservatives are threatening a motion of non-confidence. If 50%+1 of the house votes for this motion, it is much akin to voting down a budget or a throne speech, and Mr. Martin makes a trip to see the GG.
And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary?
I would consider election days to be halfway between "set" and "arbitrary."
Elections must be held at least every five years.
In majority (and also minority) government situations, the government party will choose the date, which is not about 5 weeks after parliament is dissolved. In a minority government, the opposition parties can make the decision regarding when they have lost confidence in the government. Again, the election will be about 5 weeks after parliament is dissolved. So, as far as that is understood, election day for the federal parliament is not a set date.
However, the date selected is never arbitrary, either. Any party that is going to pull the country into an election will be sure to carefully time the dissolution of the parliament, so that it is to their best advantage...
Opposition days?
On most days, it is the government who sets the agenda for the House of Commons. Opposition days, simply, are days that put the reins into the hands of an opposition party, and allows them to decide the day's agenda.
Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself?
In 1995, after the near loss of Quebec because of the referendum on provincial separation, the Chretien Liberals decided that they would show the people of Quebec just how much the federal government cared for them and support them in all of their cultural affairs. To do this, they devised the sponsorship program, through which they would sponsor festivals, fairs, events, etc, and place Canadian flags on every available surface. The Quebecois were then supposed to feel warm and happy to have been nestled in under the federal bosom, much to comfortable to contemplate the dragon separation ever again...
Well, that's a quick crash course for now... I'm sure anyone else will be sure to correct me where I'm wrong..
posted by Old Man Wilson at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2005
I'll do my best...
How do you dissolve government?
It depends who you are.
If you are the prime minister, and you have decided to dissolve the parliament, you go see the Governor General, and ask her to dissolve parliament and set the date of the next election.
If you are a regular member parliament , you may cast a vote against a "confidence motion" which requires the assent of 50%+1 of the House of Commons. If this level of support is not receive, then the prime minister must go visit the GG, and ask her to dissolve parliament (which is not always guaranteed) (The most common of these confidence motions are budgets and Thrones from the Speech. Beyond those two motions, the concept of confidence gets notoriously sketchy)
In this case, the Conservatives are threatening a motion of non-confidence. If 50%+1 of the house votes for this motion, it is much akin to voting down a budget or a throne speech, and Mr. Martin makes a trip to see the GG.
And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary?
I would consider election days to be halfway between "set" and "arbitrary."
Elections must be held at least every five years.
In majority (and also minority) government situations, the government party will choose the date, which is not about 5 weeks after parliament is dissolved. In a minority government, the opposition parties can make the decision regarding when they have lost confidence in the government. Again, the election will be about 5 weeks after parliament is dissolved. So, as far as that is understood, election day for the federal parliament is not a set date.
However, the date selected is never arbitrary, either. Any party that is going to pull the country into an election will be sure to carefully time the dissolution of the parliament, so that it is to their best advantage...
Opposition days?
On most days, it is the government who sets the agenda for the House of Commons. Opposition days, simply, are days that put the reins into the hands of an opposition party, and allows them to decide the day's agenda.
Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself?
In 1995, after the near loss of Quebec because of the referendum on provincial separation, the Chretien Liberals decided that they would show the people of Quebec just how much the federal government cared for them and support them in all of their cultural affairs. To do this, they devised the sponsorship program, through which they would sponsor festivals, fairs, events, etc, and place Canadian flags on every available surface. The Quebecois were then supposed to feel warm and happy to have been nestled in under the federal bosom, much to comfortable to contemplate the dragon separation ever again...
Well, that's a quick crash course for now... I'm sure anyone else will be sure to correct me where I'm wrong..
posted by Old Man Wilson at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2005
Yes, here is a good example of "clean" political strategy if I've even heard it:
Wow, the ignorance just got thick in here real fast. The Bloc is a federal party, and has in no way the authority to declare independence. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions or anything.
posted by clevershark at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2005
Wow, the ignorance just got thick in here real fast. The Bloc is a federal party, and has in no way the authority to declare independence. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions or anything.
posted by clevershark at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2005
Can anyone explain what's going on like they would to a 5 year-old that doesn't understand a lot of basic stuff. How do you dissolve government?
A little on that.
Opposition days?
From the CBC: Opposition Day is when opposition parties can introduce any motion they want, including a vote of non-confidence that might topple the government.
Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself?
Well, the initial intent of the ads was to foster federalism in Quebec, where separatism is a constant threat. Ironic, given how the Bloc Quebecois has been improving in recent polls...
Does anyone else think that's the stupidest thing they've ever heard?
And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary? I'm so confused...
Arbritrary, with a term lasting no more than 5 years. PMs can last forever though.
OP: And what everyone else just said :)
posted by jikel_morten at 7:33 PM on April 20, 2005
A little on that.
Opposition days?
From the CBC: Opposition Day is when opposition parties can introduce any motion they want, including a vote of non-confidence that might topple the government.
Government sponsorship ads? Why does the government need to take advertisements out for itself?
Well, the initial intent of the ads was to foster federalism in Quebec, where separatism is a constant threat. Ironic, given how the Bloc Quebecois has been improving in recent polls...
Does anyone else think that's the stupidest thing they've ever heard?
And, is there a set election day or is it arbitrary? I'm so confused...
Arbritrary, with a term lasting no more than 5 years. PMs can last forever though.
OP: And what everyone else just said :)
posted by jikel_morten at 7:33 PM on April 20, 2005
Wow, the ignorance just got thick in here real fast. The Bloc is a federal party, and has in no way the authority to declare independence. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions or anything.
posted by clevershark at 7:32 PM PST on April 20 [!]
But it is their expressed, outright, long term goal. You are not suggesting that it is not, are you?
posted by jikel_morten at 7:46 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by clevershark at 7:32 PM PST on April 20 [!]
But it is their expressed, outright, long term goal. You are not suggesting that it is not, are you?
posted by jikel_morten at 7:46 PM on April 20, 2005
Sovereignty, that is.
posted by jikel_morten at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by jikel_morten at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2005
I don't really understand why people don't vote NDP (he seems pretty cool for an old guy) but they don't so I wont either or else I'd just be throwing my vote away.
That's exactly why, sadly. Of course, every vote for a local candidate who doesn't win is equally wasted, but it doesn't "feel" that way when your party wins a bunch of seats elsewhere.
posted by onshi at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2005
That's exactly why, sadly. Of course, every vote for a local candidate who doesn't win is equally wasted, but it doesn't "feel" that way when your party wins a bunch of seats elsewhere.
posted by onshi at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2005
Can someone explain to me this whole sponsership scandel thing? I've spent too much time over the last few months at iht.com, and not enough time reading what's happening in my own country. All I know is that some money was lost and there was a week where golf balls were very important.
posted by sleslie at 8:00 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by sleslie at 8:00 PM on April 20, 2005
Wow, the ignorance just got thick in here real fast. The Bloc is a federal party, and has in no way the authority to declare independence. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions or anything.
The Bloc is not a federal party. Rather, a sovereigntist party electing members to the federal party. Their goal is Quebec separation, remember?
And, I know that they have no authority to declare independence. Not even the 1980 or 1995 referendums had that. But, certainly, they have the authority to start stirring the pots of separation within Quebec, and attempt to work with a Parti Quebecois provincial government to launch another referendum campaign.
For a person who supported the Bloc in 04, I would have hoped that you had a better understand of where you were tossing your vote.
posted by Old Man Wilson at 8:03 PM on April 20, 2005
The Bloc is not a federal party. Rather, a sovereigntist party electing members to the federal party. Their goal is Quebec separation, remember?
And, I know that they have no authority to declare independence. Not even the 1980 or 1995 referendums had that. But, certainly, they have the authority to start stirring the pots of separation within Quebec, and attempt to work with a Parti Quebecois provincial government to launch another referendum campaign.
For a person who supported the Bloc in 04, I would have hoped that you had a better understand of where you were tossing your vote.
posted by Old Man Wilson at 8:03 PM on April 20, 2005
sorry: *understanding* of where you were tossing your vote.
posted by Old Man Wilson at 8:04 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by Old Man Wilson at 8:04 PM on April 20, 2005
Everyone, thank you very much for the education. I have to say that a lot of it seems somewhat haphazard, but then I imagine much of our system probably feels that way to you guys, too. I'm still amazed that a province can just decide to secede and there's nothing that can be done about it (with guns and bombs, that is).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:06 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:06 PM on April 20, 2005
I'm still amazed that a province can just decide to secede and there's nothing that can be done about it..
The Supreme Court decided in 1998 that "neither the Quebec government nor legislature have a legal right under Canadian constitutional law or under international law to unilaterally secede from Canada". However, the court also ruled that if the majority of Quebecers voted for secession, then it must be negotiated on a federal level (meaning all provinces).
This is a good reference regarding the secession of Quebec, and the constitutional issues therein.
posted by purephase at 8:41 PM on April 20, 2005
The Supreme Court decided in 1998 that "neither the Quebec government nor legislature have a legal right under Canadian constitutional law or under international law to unilaterally secede from Canada". However, the court also ruled that if the majority of Quebecers voted for secession, then it must be negotiated on a federal level (meaning all provinces).
This is a good reference regarding the secession of Quebec, and the constitutional issues therein.
posted by purephase at 8:41 PM on April 20, 2005
I have to say that a lot of it seems somewhat haphazard, but then I imagine much of our system probably feels that way to you guys, too.
I suspect the implications of "Her Magisty's Loyal Opposition" are giving you trouble. Unlike the US, our losing parties have the respected and noble duty to harass the government over every statement and decision. In majority-governments (which due to our first-past-the-post electoral system occurs most of the time), this leads to a government which is held accountable, without being hamstrung.
This is the first time I've lived through a minority-government, and I must say I'm not impressed. Instead of fostering compromise, that same posturing has been holding good legislation hostage, and now risks plunging us into an election nobody wants. I used to be a proponent of proportional representation, but not anymore
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:25 PM on April 20, 2005
I suspect the implications of "Her Magisty's Loyal Opposition" are giving you trouble. Unlike the US, our losing parties have the respected and noble duty to harass the government over every statement and decision. In majority-governments (which due to our first-past-the-post electoral system occurs most of the time), this leads to a government which is held accountable, without being hamstrung.
This is the first time I've lived through a minority-government, and I must say I'm not impressed. Instead of fostering compromise, that same posturing has been holding good legislation hostage, and now risks plunging us into an election nobody wants. I used to be a proponent of proportional representation, but not anymore
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:25 PM on April 20, 2005
As an American, I thank Metas' Canadian members. This has been interesting watching these events unfold, and it's refreshing to see just how other governments function... even when confronted with scandal.
... If only there was some way that our own governing officials were held accountable for their actions... something akin to a system of checks and balances to ensure that political powers were not abused to the detriment of the American people...
Oh well, A boy can dream.
Give those Conservatives hell.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 10:34 PM on April 20, 2005
... If only there was some way that our own governing officials were held accountable for their actions... something akin to a system of checks and balances to ensure that political powers were not abused to the detriment of the American people...
Oh well, A boy can dream.
Give those Conservatives hell.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 10:34 PM on April 20, 2005
Here's some info on how the new (so-called) Conservatives came into being, and what they stand for. Guess who denounced the Canadian government in the Wall St. Journal for not joining the "Coalition of the Willing," using the phrase "Make no mistake"? Spooky, eh?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:25 PM on April 20, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:25 PM on April 20, 2005
I'm going to have to agree with Jack and Stephen on this one (shudder) -- this is not a crisis for Canada. This is a crisis for Paul Martin and the Liberals. This should be handled in Question Period, not in prime time.
The man does gets props for the inquiry, though, and not burying this the way Cretien would have with a wave of his hand and some snarky remark (pepper? that's what I put on my soup).
posted by dreamsign at 4:54 AM on April 21, 2005
The man does gets props for the inquiry, though, and not burying this the way Cretien would have with a wave of his hand and some snarky remark (pepper? that's what I put on my soup).
posted by dreamsign at 4:54 AM on April 21, 2005
Politics is one of the greatest spectator sports I know, and right now in Canada it is so fun to be watching in unfold.
The Liberal (capital L) party screwed up, and they will probably pay for it in the next election. If I was the most worried person right now I think I'd be Stephen Harper (leader of the Conservatives (capital C), because he might get the PM's seat soon. If he gets in it will possibly be a minority and he'll have a really tough time getting anything done. He'll have zero support from the Bloc and NDP, and maybe a few disgruntled Libs, but possibly not enough for a majority. If so, he'll be forced to do the job, and it'll be hillarious. He'll need to silence as best he can the social conservatives (small c) who were the Canadian Alliance party (formerlly Reform party who broke away from the party they recently merged with, the Progressive Conservative party.
Canadian voters are pissed, but not pissed off enough to want an election. It's a complex process to understand, and it costs us money. We'd rather be sitting on the beach, enjoying the sun and hoping we're sending enough peace keepers to the right places in the world. Why deal with a federal election unless we have to?
Here in BC, we're voting on whether we want to change our system of voting from a really bad system, to a slightly less bad system. Once that happens the Green's will elect MLA's (Members of the Legislative Assembly) to provincial government, then eventually it'll hit federal.
posted by futureproof at 5:23 AM on April 21, 2005
The Liberal (capital L) party screwed up, and they will probably pay for it in the next election. If I was the most worried person right now I think I'd be Stephen Harper (leader of the Conservatives (capital C), because he might get the PM's seat soon. If he gets in it will possibly be a minority and he'll have a really tough time getting anything done. He'll have zero support from the Bloc and NDP, and maybe a few disgruntled Libs, but possibly not enough for a majority. If so, he'll be forced to do the job, and it'll be hillarious. He'll need to silence as best he can the social conservatives (small c) who were the Canadian Alliance party (formerlly Reform party who broke away from the party they recently merged with, the Progressive Conservative party.
Canadian voters are pissed, but not pissed off enough to want an election. It's a complex process to understand, and it costs us money. We'd rather be sitting on the beach, enjoying the sun and hoping we're sending enough peace keepers to the right places in the world. Why deal with a federal election unless we have to?
Here in BC, we're voting on whether we want to change our system of voting from a really bad system, to a slightly less bad system. Once that happens the Green's will elect MLA's (Members of the Legislative Assembly) to provincial government, then eventually it'll hit federal.
posted by futureproof at 5:23 AM on April 21, 2005
dreamsign writes "not burying this the way Cretien would have with a wave of his hand"
The thing about Chretien though is that he was a skilled operator at the dark arts of politics. I think, for all the hoopla about Martin being the second coming of Christ, he has fallen way short of expectations. I'd even go so far as to say that maybe he wasn't cut out for the top job. He's more of a policy wonk then a decisive leader and right now he's acting like a doormat to the Provinces. At least Chretien didn't act like a freaking bank machine every time a Premier came to Ottawa holding out his hat.
posted by smcniven at 5:44 AM on April 21, 2005
The thing about Chretien though is that he was a skilled operator at the dark arts of politics. I think, for all the hoopla about Martin being the second coming of Christ, he has fallen way short of expectations. I'd even go so far as to say that maybe he wasn't cut out for the top job. He's more of a policy wonk then a decisive leader and right now he's acting like a doormat to the Provinces. At least Chretien didn't act like a freaking bank machine every time a Premier came to Ottawa holding out his hat.
posted by smcniven at 5:44 AM on April 21, 2005
Here in BC, we're voting on whether we want to change our system of voting from a really bad system, to a slightly less bad system.
Really bad system explained.
Slightly less bad system explained.
Any opinions expressed in these link titles are not those of my own.
posted by Old Man Wilson at 5:54 AM on April 21, 2005
Really bad system explained.
Slightly less bad system explained.
Any opinions expressed in these link titles are not those of my own.
posted by Old Man Wilson at 5:54 AM on April 21, 2005
onshi : That's exactly why, sadly. Of course, every vote for a local candidate who doesn't win is equally wasted, but it doesn't "feel" that way when your party wins a bunch of seats elsewhere.
I totally don't understand this "I've got to vote for the winner" point of view. If Cthulu, Gengis Khan and Ghandi were running 48/48/4% in the polls would you not vote for Ghandi just because he has no chance of winning?
posted by Mitheral at 9:05 AM on April 21, 2005
I totally don't understand this "I've got to vote for the winner" point of view. If Cthulu, Gengis Khan and Ghandi were running 48/48/4% in the polls would you not vote for Ghandi just because he has no chance of winning?
posted by Mitheral at 9:05 AM on April 21, 2005
I totally don't understand this "I've got to vote for the winner" point of view.
It's not really a matter of wanting to be on the winning team... the real goal is to make sure that the guy you really, really, hate doesn't end up winning--especially when the race is really close.
posted by haasim at 9:51 AM on April 21, 2005
It's not really a matter of wanting to be on the winning team... the real goal is to make sure that the guy you really, really, hate doesn't end up winning--especially when the race is really close.
posted by haasim at 9:51 AM on April 21, 2005
the real goal is to make sure that the guy you really, really, hate doesn't end up winning--especially when the race is really close.
Exactly.
I don't prefer to vote Conservative or Liberal, but if I was in a riding where there was a close race between an L canidate & a C canidate, I'd have to vote Liberal so that I didn't split the non-Conservative vote. In that case, my vote for a Liberal would really be a vote against the Conservatives, since I would consider a Conservative government a national disaster.
It's important to know what the local race is, though. Where I live, the Liberals are a non-issue (although next riding over overwhelmingly supported the current Liberal Finance Minister). Last year's election saw the NDP incumbent lose his seat to a Conservative by a slim margin - 600 votes IIRC.
posted by raedyn at 10:32 AM on April 21, 2005
Exactly.
I don't prefer to vote Conservative or Liberal, but if I was in a riding where there was a close race between an L canidate & a C canidate, I'd have to vote Liberal so that I didn't split the non-Conservative vote. In that case, my vote for a Liberal would really be a vote against the Conservatives, since I would consider a Conservative government a national disaster.
It's important to know what the local race is, though. Where I live, the Liberals are a non-issue (although next riding over overwhelmingly supported the current Liberal Finance Minister). Last year's election saw the NDP incumbent lose his seat to a Conservative by a slim margin - 600 votes IIRC.
posted by raedyn at 10:32 AM on April 21, 2005
I would hate to see a federal election so soon after the last one. What a waste of time and money. But it's also useless to have a government that's hamstrung & unable to get anything done.
I didn't vote Liberal last time, but since they're the government I'd really like to see them deliver on some of their promises: portion of gas tax to the cities (help us fix our failing infrastructure!), national daycare (though they've been promising that since I would have been in daycare and now I want it for my kid), equal marriage for all Canadians....
In the current situation they won't be able to do that stuff even if they want to. (Well, they could get enough support to pass the gay marriage bill, but you don't see them in a big hurry, do you?)
posted by raedyn at 10:37 AM on April 21, 2005
I didn't vote Liberal last time, but since they're the government I'd really like to see them deliver on some of their promises: portion of gas tax to the cities (help us fix our failing infrastructure!), national daycare (though they've been promising that since I would have been in daycare and now I want it for my kid), equal marriage for all Canadians....
In the current situation they won't be able to do that stuff even if they want to. (Well, they could get enough support to pass the gay marriage bill, but you don't see them in a big hurry, do you?)
posted by raedyn at 10:37 AM on April 21, 2005
I will be satisfied if Martin comes out and states that heads will roll. I want consequences for this scandal. Let there be jail time.
Paul Martin has impressed me with his thoughtful and fair, albeit slow-moving, policy decisions. I believe he understands that there needs to be careful balance between corporate and public interests. He has, I feel, been a mainly sensible fellow.
I prefer sensible over radical any day of the year.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 AM on April 21, 2005
Paul Martin has impressed me with his thoughtful and fair, albeit slow-moving, policy decisions. I believe he understands that there needs to be careful balance between corporate and public interests. He has, I feel, been a mainly sensible fellow.
I prefer sensible over radical any day of the year.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 AM on April 21, 2005
I don't prefer to vote Conservative or Liberal, but if I was in a riding where there was a close race between an L canidate & a C canidate, I'd have to vote Liberal so that I didn't split the non-Conservative vote
There are some Nader voters I'd like you to slap some sense into.
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:07 AM on April 21, 2005
There are some Nader voters I'd like you to slap some sense into.
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:07 AM on April 21, 2005
Well, first of all, Paul Martin is a friend of Bono. And any friend of Bono is a friend of mine. That said, yeah, I would vote for Martin again. Because Bono is cool and if you got cool friends, that means you're cool too. Now, you gotta ask yourself: who would you want to be principle of your school? Harper? Screw that, he’s an asshole. Martin? Cool.
posted by disgruntled at 11:16 AM on April 21, 2005
posted by disgruntled at 11:16 AM on April 21, 2005
Haasim:
As I recall, the NDP were complaining that the Greens were too conservative in the last election. The Green party stance isn't really what I'd call 'communism': they want to reduce pollution by shifting taxes from income to resources. It's a very 'conservative' stance if you believe that any party that talks about the market being right is conservative. What they want to do is change relative prices in the market for labour and resources. They also want to price things which might not have been priced (and thus 'in the market' before.)
This is similar to Kyoto proposals whereby you issue tradeable emissions credits to companies and then sit back and watch as (hopefully, assuming you set it up right) an efficient market solution falls out as companies try to figure out how to cut costs.
posted by maledictory at 11:43 AM on April 21, 2005
As I recall, the NDP were complaining that the Greens were too conservative in the last election. The Green party stance isn't really what I'd call 'communism': they want to reduce pollution by shifting taxes from income to resources. It's a very 'conservative' stance if you believe that any party that talks about the market being right is conservative. What they want to do is change relative prices in the market for labour and resources. They also want to price things which might not have been priced (and thus 'in the market' before.)
This is similar to Kyoto proposals whereby you issue tradeable emissions credits to companies and then sit back and watch as (hopefully, assuming you set it up right) an efficient market solution falls out as companies try to figure out how to cut costs.
posted by maledictory at 11:43 AM on April 21, 2005
My communism comment was just a lame rehash of criticisms I've heard made against the Green Party. However, the Green Party often seems to be made up of kids pretending to be grown-ups, and their leader doesn't really inspire much confidence.
I consider myself socialist-minded and I hope Canada makes real effort towards realizing the goals of the Kyoto Accords–something not likely to happen with a conservative government.
posted by haasim at 12:24 PM on April 21, 2005
I consider myself socialist-minded and I hope Canada makes real effort towards realizing the goals of the Kyoto Accords–something not likely to happen with a conservative government.
posted by haasim at 12:24 PM on April 21, 2005
The Green Party are blue-sky idealists who would screw up things irrepairably. What they want is utopian, and simply can not be made to happen within our lifetimes.
They would make a decent third party, in that they would lend voice to these important issues, which will help drive a more sensible government toward dealing with the issues.
Myself, I'd like to see the NDP given a chance. I think Layton has his head on straight regarding fiscal matters, which is a first for the party in many decades. Previous incarnations of the NDP would have made for a trainwreck.
The reason I'd like to see the NDP in power is because I believe the government has moved too far toward the favour of big business, at the cost of social good. We need to maintain and improve our social programs at this time, before they completely disintegrate from lack of funding, government meddling, and corporate privitization.
I'll settle for Martin, because I think that at his core, he understands that what makes Canada so good are its social values. I think that if push came to shove, he'd likely side with the good of our society before selling out to big business.
Or at least I sure hope so.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:49 PM on April 21, 2005
They would make a decent third party, in that they would lend voice to these important issues, which will help drive a more sensible government toward dealing with the issues.
Myself, I'd like to see the NDP given a chance. I think Layton has his head on straight regarding fiscal matters, which is a first for the party in many decades. Previous incarnations of the NDP would have made for a trainwreck.
The reason I'd like to see the NDP in power is because I believe the government has moved too far toward the favour of big business, at the cost of social good. We need to maintain and improve our social programs at this time, before they completely disintegrate from lack of funding, government meddling, and corporate privitization.
I'll settle for Martin, because I think that at his core, he understands that what makes Canada so good are its social values. I think that if push came to shove, he'd likely side with the good of our society before selling out to big business.
Or at least I sure hope so.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:49 PM on April 21, 2005
The address has been moved up to 7:02 pm. Please make a note of it. :)
posted by shepd at 1:09 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by shepd at 1:09 PM on April 21, 2005
The Green Party does not want a utopia.
The reason people do not take the Green Party seriouslly is because they have never held an elected office in Canada. If the STV referendum in BC goes though, there will be Green candidates in the BC Parliement as soon as the next election (that uses STV). Once people come to understand that they are not hippies but do in fact where suits when needed and just want a better world, I hope that enough people will give them the opportunity to fuck everything up for five years. If all goes to hell we'll get someone back in with a track record. What happens if it goes well?
The NDP is bordering on irrelevent (at least provincially in BC which is about as left coast as you can get). They are unable to cut their ties with organized labour which will get them no where.
posted by futureproof at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2005
The reason people do not take the Green Party seriouslly is because they have never held an elected office in Canada. If the STV referendum in BC goes though, there will be Green candidates in the BC Parliement as soon as the next election (that uses STV). Once people come to understand that they are not hippies but do in fact where suits when needed and just want a better world, I hope that enough people will give them the opportunity to fuck everything up for five years. If all goes to hell we'll get someone back in with a track record. What happens if it goes well?
The NDP is bordering on irrelevent (at least provincially in BC which is about as left coast as you can get). They are unable to cut their ties with organized labour which will get them no where.
posted by futureproof at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2005
Believe it or not, futureproof, and I say this as someone who has knowledge of what's gone on behind closed doors for several unions:
They have cut their ties with the NDP. They are not willing to voice direct support of the NDP, nor are they willing to direct members' votes toward the NDP. Any political connections that remain are the result of laziness, 'cause the AGMs have made it abundantly clear that the executive and the membership are pissed at the NDP.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:30 PM on April 21, 2005
They have cut their ties with the NDP. They are not willing to voice direct support of the NDP, nor are they willing to direct members' votes toward the NDP. Any political connections that remain are the result of laziness, 'cause the AGMs have made it abundantly clear that the executive and the membership are pissed at the NDP.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:30 PM on April 21, 2005
Damnit. I didn't make it home in time and see that the whole gang is having their say but Paul went first.
I get the gist of what was said from the CBC (and it's what I expected, but slightly better), but one thing I can't tell from the coverage alone: did he sound sincere?
posted by dreamsign at 4:31 PM on April 21, 2005
I get the gist of what was said from the CBC (and it's what I expected, but slightly better), but one thing I can't tell from the coverage alone: did he sound sincere?
posted by dreamsign at 4:31 PM on April 21, 2005
Martin's Address:
I am prepared to face Canadians and have them judge my response to this serious test of leadership. I will be politically accountable. But I believe that before there is an election, you are entitled to answers – to the answers that Judge Gomery is working toward. I believe that Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of all the facts. Fairness and due process require nothing less.
For that reason, I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission’s final report and recommendations. Let Judge Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say.
If the Opposition forces an election before then, that is their choice. But I believe we can do better. I believe we can – and we should – use the coming months to pursue the public’s business. To act on the issues that matter most to you and make a difference in your life.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:35 PM on April 21, 2005
I am prepared to face Canadians and have them judge my response to this serious test of leadership. I will be politically accountable. But I believe that before there is an election, you are entitled to answers – to the answers that Judge Gomery is working toward. I believe that Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of all the facts. Fairness and due process require nothing less.
For that reason, I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission’s final report and recommendations. Let Judge Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say.
If the Opposition forces an election before then, that is their choice. But I believe we can do better. I believe we can – and we should – use the coming months to pursue the public’s business. To act on the issues that matter most to you and make a difference in your life.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:35 PM on April 21, 2005
PM sounded like he always does. Personally, I think he's sincere.
Harper sounded like he always does. To me, he sounds like he's lying even when he isn't.
Duceppe seemed most convincingly honest as usual. He virtually said straight out that he wants an election right now because he thinks he can win it.
Layton did the usual NDP thing very well, I think. If we got to vote on the winner of this little episode, I'd vote for him.
posted by sfenders at 4:38 PM on April 21, 2005
Harper sounded like he always does. To me, he sounds like he's lying even when he isn't.
Duceppe seemed most convincingly honest as usual. He virtually said straight out that he wants an election right now because he thinks he can win it.
Layton did the usual NDP thing very well, I think. If we got to vote on the winner of this little episode, I'd vote for him.
posted by sfenders at 4:38 PM on April 21, 2005
Now, you gotta ask yourself: who would you want to be principle of your school? Harper? Screw that, he’s an asshole. Martin? Cool.
For me, I have to picture one of these guys representing us abroad. As much as I'd like to support the NDP, the idea of Jack flailing about with his theatrics and his hyperbole makes me cringe and want to hide my nationality. Stephen not much better, but for different reasons. I like the Bloc's platform minus the separatist element, of course, and if they ran nation-wide as a provincial-rights party, I'd support it (and I know a lot of others who would, too -- a lot of their ideas for Quebec make excellent sense elsewhere in the country) but lately I find he's stooping to the game. I hate to see Paul's mincing photo-op antics, make me want to shout at him to get off his knees and wipe the cum from his chin, but -- sadly -- I think he's our best man (though I don't think he represents the best party).
If the NDP doesn't get their act together (and replace Layton) I'm going green, green, green. HAD to vote Broadbent last time around, though.
posted by dreamsign at 4:40 PM on April 21, 2005
For me, I have to picture one of these guys representing us abroad. As much as I'd like to support the NDP, the idea of Jack flailing about with his theatrics and his hyperbole makes me cringe and want to hide my nationality. Stephen not much better, but for different reasons. I like the Bloc's platform minus the separatist element, of course, and if they ran nation-wide as a provincial-rights party, I'd support it (and I know a lot of others who would, too -- a lot of their ideas for Quebec make excellent sense elsewhere in the country) but lately I find he's stooping to the game. I hate to see Paul's mincing photo-op antics, make me want to shout at him to get off his knees and wipe the cum from his chin, but -- sadly -- I think he's our best man (though I don't think he represents the best party).
If the NDP doesn't get their act together (and replace Layton) I'm going green, green, green. HAD to vote Broadbent last time around, though.
posted by dreamsign at 4:40 PM on April 21, 2005
Jack started really slow, but he picked up at the end... I like Jack, but he just isn't exceptional enough to really shake things up.
posted by Chuckles at 4:52 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by Chuckles at 4:52 PM on April 21, 2005
I'm asking myself, why does the PM have to go on prime time to explain "the process" of what is an inquiry. He can't get in a word edgewise in Parliament [more like high school with a replacement teacher] due to the constant heckling.
My Mom would call it interrupting.
What this tells me, is that the Parliamentary system isn't working when it allows anyone opposing to just act like a goof and say anything "headline" worthy. As long as it gives them props.
If you pulled that kind of shit at work, you'd be shit canned. Why is it "acceptable" in Parliament? Exactly what are we teaching youth today? [Yah, our future leaders]
Let's start by dumping the Queen's representative, Adrian Clarkson, the Governor General.
WTF is she good for?
Bloody hell.
It's not a trial, it's an inquiry, so sit down and shaddup and get working damn it.
No golf balls for you.
posted by alicesshoe at 7:49 PM on April 21, 2005
My Mom would call it interrupting.
What this tells me, is that the Parliamentary system isn't working when it allows anyone opposing to just act like a goof and say anything "headline" worthy. As long as it gives them props.
If you pulled that kind of shit at work, you'd be shit canned. Why is it "acceptable" in Parliament? Exactly what are we teaching youth today? [Yah, our future leaders]
Let's start by dumping the Queen's representative, Adrian Clarkson, the Governor General.
WTF is she good for?
Bloody hell.
It's not a trial, it's an inquiry, so sit down and shaddup and get working damn it.
No golf balls for you.
posted by alicesshoe at 7:49 PM on April 21, 2005
The reason people do not take the Green Party seriouslly is because they have never held an elected office in Canada.
Somone I used to know worked closely with the NDP, and it was a common criticism that they not only didn't get the federal ball, but they weren't aiming to grab it either. It was far easier to accept their fate as an outsider party and be completely unreasonable in their demands, taking things beyond what they would if they had to deal with the practial reality of their platform. So the argument goes that they make a passable opposition, but aren't looking to become leadership, and because they direct their policies that way, can't.
The greens *aren't* taken seriously. Who got up to talk tonight? The "four". That pretty much sums it up.
Anyway, Jack fits that party description. He's all about the hysterics.
posted by dreamsign at 9:13 PM on April 21, 2005
Somone I used to know worked closely with the NDP, and it was a common criticism that they not only didn't get the federal ball, but they weren't aiming to grab it either. It was far easier to accept their fate as an outsider party and be completely unreasonable in their demands, taking things beyond what they would if they had to deal with the practial reality of their platform. So the argument goes that they make a passable opposition, but aren't looking to become leadership, and because they direct their policies that way, can't.
The greens *aren't* taken seriously. Who got up to talk tonight? The "four". That pretty much sums it up.
Anyway, Jack fits that party description. He's all about the hysterics.
posted by dreamsign at 9:13 PM on April 21, 2005
FFF: bang on. The NDP cut their ties with labour many years ago, but their history makes for great smear material for right-wing groups, and they will never let them live it down.
If your reason for not voting NDP is because of those "damn unions" then you should pull your head out of the sand.
The NDP is bordering on irrelevent (at least provincially in BC which is about as left coast as you can get).
I wouldn't call a party which has formed several majority governments and is looking at a LARGE Opposition after the May election "irrelevant," but that's just me. Of course they only have 3 seats now due to that last election, but you're not that myopic I'm sure.
posted by mek at 9:32 PM on April 21, 2005
If your reason for not voting NDP is because of those "damn unions" then you should pull your head out of the sand.
The NDP is bordering on irrelevent (at least provincially in BC which is about as left coast as you can get).
I wouldn't call a party which has formed several majority governments and is looking at a LARGE Opposition after the May election "irrelevant," but that's just me. Of course they only have 3 seats now due to that last election, but you're not that myopic I'm sure.
posted by mek at 9:32 PM on April 21, 2005
In BC the provincial NDP leader has stated that she wishes she could cut ties to big labour, but can't. Unions are the top financial contributer to the party.
I see that nationally though they have been successfull at it.
posted by futureproof at 9:46 PM on April 21, 2005
I see that nationally though they have been successfull at it.
posted by futureproof at 9:46 PM on April 21, 2005
Sorry, futureproof, but my knowledge of the union view is from BC. Two substantial unions in their AGMs these past couple of years had heated debates about association with the NDP, and in both cases they decided the NDP could go get bent: they were not going to be supported by the union, neither financially nor by call to vote.
The rift between the unions and the NDP has become a chasm, and I don't see it being bridged any time too soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:12 PM on April 21, 2005
The rift between the unions and the NDP has become a chasm, and I don't see it being bridged any time too soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:12 PM on April 21, 2005
Wow. Everyone should listen to the speech. Americans, too: they'll hear what a good Canadian speech sounds like, and can contrast it to what their administration puts out.
I'm impressed. I think Paul Martin is genuinely pissed that such things were allowed to happen. I am prepared to believe that he was in the dark about it. I am certain that he intends to clean up the mess, and will do it very punitively.
And when I think about some of the initiatives and goals he's set this past six months or so, I think maybe I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself over a full term.
It's not like he's gonna be able to escape the electorate. One year or another, there'll have to be a full accounting. So let's see whether, scandal aside, there's anything to this Liberal leadership. If Paul Martin can do good shit for the next four years, maybe that'll make up for the scandal. And maybe it won't.
Let's give the Alliance four years to mature, and give the Liberals four years to suckhole to the public. It's a win-win for everyone!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 PM on April 21, 2005
I'm impressed. I think Paul Martin is genuinely pissed that such things were allowed to happen. I am prepared to believe that he was in the dark about it. I am certain that he intends to clean up the mess, and will do it very punitively.
And when I think about some of the initiatives and goals he's set this past six months or so, I think maybe I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself over a full term.
It's not like he's gonna be able to escape the electorate. One year or another, there'll have to be a full accounting. So let's see whether, scandal aside, there's anything to this Liberal leadership. If Paul Martin can do good shit for the next four years, maybe that'll make up for the scandal. And maybe it won't.
Let's give the Alliance four years to mature, and give the Liberals four years to suckhole to the public. It's a win-win for everyone!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 PM on April 21, 2005
I'd rather give the Alliance four more years to self-destruct, but I accept your proposal.
posted by mek at 3:37 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by mek at 3:37 AM on April 22, 2005
Four years of self-destruct works for me, too! [bfg]
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on April 22, 2005
« Older Son of the USB 2.0 Hi-speed Flash drive roundup | Oopsy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The recent release to the internet of testimony from the Government's ongoing investigation is very revealing, and was originally placed under a publication ban, but is no longer.
Also of note is that Canada's government is engaged in a possibly permanent deadlock/filibuster until re-election. This is due to disagreement between the minority government and opposition parties on when the opposition may table opinions on a no confidence vote to remove Paul Martin as Prime Minister and force a very early, and also rare, mid-summer election. 7 opposition days are held per yearly term ending June 23, of which 1 has been granted so far.
posted by shepd at 3:27 PM on April 20, 2005