Apparently the voters have bigger concerns than 355 million... I don't believe it is simply rhetoric that is preventing them from voting other than Liberal...

People are pissed to be sure. The Liberals will feel the sting of their actions in Quebec. I predict they loose many of the 21 seats they hold in Quebec. Until Gomery is done we don't really know how far up the scandal goes (i.e. what did Martin know) or if it touches Liberals outside of Quebec (this is important in Ontario).

Until the Conservatives can mount a truly national party you can forget about them getting anything more than a weak minority. I say weak because who will support them? The Liberals? The NDP? The Bloc?

If they win a minority I would count on a new election as soon as the Liberals can elect a new leader and clean house... 18 months, tops.

Now you see, the way you just stated that if in fact that happened, would seem to most that an 18 month period would be acceptable for the Liberals to regain power. Why is it when the Tories scream and yell over an election call, they are painted as power hungry, hell bent on winning at all cost and are decidedly going to ruin Canada and split it apart, and at the very least are set to waste 300 million for an election?

I'm not picking on you Charlatan, I agree with what you say. But the double standards (not yours) and the perception of Canadians is defined in your words. Good Lord, the Liberals have been kissing the Blocs ass for ever, giving into almost every whim yet the Tories try and defeat the budget with the Bloc (who are only in it for themselves,...they don't care who is in power ass long as the cookie jar stays full) and are accused of trying to ruin Canada. Unreal.

I agree Harper won't win anything but worse I think the Liberals could put a monkey in as leader and still win. I don't know anymore. Either I am so out of the loop and stupid beyond reason, or simply an anomoly, and one who is tired of paying taxes while my money get's wasted. Maybe starting next year I won't pay taxes anymore. Then I could buy that Lexus I test drove on the weekend. And paper trail? What paper trail?

edit- And the Tories are as much of a national party as the Liberals are. If it weren't for Ontario, the liberals would be even more meager than the NDP.

I have no issue with the Conservatives forcing an election... any time but now. I do not want them to force an election based on the Gomery commission when Gomery hasn't even finished, and I think that is generally how most people feel.

Most people are all fired up about Adscam. Most want to see the crooks brought to justice BUT they want the whole picture. The Conservatives came off as opportunistic in a bad way. They reacting in a knee-jerk fashion rather than just waiting patiently for the final verdict.

I also think that most people believed that an election would provide us with just about the same sort of situation as we are in right now.


Oddly, what seems to be happening is that the Conservatives have come to represent much of Rural Canada vs. the Liberals representing an more Urban base.

It's nothing new. Been going on forever. I like the rural/urban thing though. Rural = sheep,...Urban = monkey's in the zoo. What to do. :crazy:

I don't want a majority government either. =)

I'm picky.

Nope, I'm happy with an adminstrator running the country.

I consider balancing the budget and social issues to be more important than a relatively small amount of money spent poorly on national unity.

Canada’s debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio is expected to decline to 38.8 per cent in 2004-05, down from 68.4 per cent in 1995-96.

Canada's GDP is 1 trillion dollars.
30% of that is 300 billion dollars. That's a fuckton of fiscal responsibility.

0.1% of that is the highest figure I've seen for the sponsorship scandal. I want to see the Gomrey inquiry and the criminal trials go forward.

I think you overestimate the Bloc's adherance to their seperatist credo.

It still doesn't make make fraud, corruption, lies and slander, exorbitant levels of mismanagement and general incompetance acceptable. Ask me how much I pay in taxes every year? That might explain my angst somewhat.

I don't think people are saying that the incompetance is acceptable. The problem is until Gomery is done we don't know for sure how deep the corruption goes. Was this just a certain group of the Quebec wing of the Liberals (the ones who are going to go to jail, are no longer in office and/or will get handed their ass come next election) or does it go deeper and effect ALL Liberals.

Give us the full picture and then we can judge.

Then we can make Jack Layton the new PM... :P :lol:

I'll accept that. The problem I have though is first it was Chretien, then Gagliano who wanted to shut down the inquiry. Makes me wonder why.

As for Gomery, I have lost all faith in the precedings and really feel nothing will come about, and if something does, it will be minor characters that get shafted. We have Corriveau who stated he directly spoke with Chretien about sponsorships and who and where should get what.

But more importantly this past week, we had the judge himself saying that the testimony of Breault, the guy who is fingering peoples involvement, showing a money trail of corruption etc,...that his testimony has yet to be proven. What the fuck. We have a line up of people saying,..."I don't recall, I don't remember, I'm not aware, and on and on and on,...yet the guy who is spilling the beans is being questioned about his validity. Fuck off.

I can see why people will lie or just "not recall" to save their asses but why would a guy seemingly tell the truth and potential ruin his career, just to be lying about the supposed truth? It just doesn't add up.

And I'll say it again, nothing of any substance will come of this inquiry. Oh wait,..one thing will. The Tories will be blamed for the 32 million wasted money for pushing for an inquiry in the first place. Incidentally, did any one else hear of more Liberal lies this week when it was stated that the inquiry has costed 72 million? And it was Gomery who himself who said they are still under the 32 million budget. T.v and papers picked up on the exorbitant 72 figure of waste, but never retracted. No wonder most people don't know what the fuck is going on.

I agree. With this line in the terms of reference " the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization..", this inquiry will be a non-event.

If nothing comes of this I will be more than pissed. But then again, I don't vote Liberal anyway.

There is definately something going on behind the scenes with Galliano and Chretien trying to remove Gomery and with the leaks of overspending... smells fishy anyway.

yup. Gomery should stay. those under investigation shouldn't be trying to alter the inquiry.

I find it very interesting how the furor over Gomery has been practically silenced...

I know we are all supposed to be waiting until the big finish and the following election but there was barely a blip in the media when the inquiry wrapped a short while ago.

That's Canadian politics for you...

We get really pissed, then we forget about how bad the politicians are when it comes time to vote because they pull the "My Opposition will break up the country" card on us.

I want the person's voting record made public (as in published in my newspaper public, not 'Available at the Library' public) and hold them accountable for the shit they did in office.

I thought that the BC voting system would have been cool if it would have been voted in.

I realized agout 20 mins after posting this that the reason all had been quiet was because the Parliament has not been sitting all summer... I am sure the cages will start rattling again now that they are back in session.

Don't give up it yet. The Gov is still going to try again for a change in the voting system.


As for the thread topic.... Central Canada will be lulled into thinking the Liberals can do no harm and life will continue as we know it with a re-elected Martin spouting off how he has the confidence of Canadians.:rolleyes:
Basically, nothing of substance is going to happen despite the inquiry.

i'm sorta confused.. I thought the gomery inquiry goes until the end of may '06. Anyone know the results of the inquiry if it's all wrapped up?

I think the hearings are wrapped. The deliberations will take some time. This is pretty standard. It allows the judge and his support staff the time to examine all the testimony as well as write the report, which will likely be a book of some weight.

Thank you. That clears up a lot of things for me :)

Well, I guess the answer the my question is yes...

It looks like we will have an election sometime near the end of December. Harper put a motion of non-confidence forward in the house yesterday and it was seconded by Layton. The vote will be held early next week.

I honestly think this is the right thing to do. After the revelations of the Gomery part one, I don't feel there is any reason to keep the Liberals out of an election.

I am doubly pissed that they are digging their heels in and refusing to take the compromise offered by Layton and supported by the entire opposition to post-pone the election call until January. I think Martin and his strategists think they can earn points blaming the opposition for calling an election during the holidays... Phooey.

This government is toast... they know it, we know it. I think they would have gained more points in taking a consiliatory position. Gomery was damning. The only reason they want to hang on until February, when Gomery part 2 comes out is that it will give them more time to spin in their own favour and more importantly to spend the surplus...

The Liberals are acting like a husband caught cheating... Maybe if I buy the wife a diamond necklace she will forget about my indescretions. Fat chance buddy.

Layton was a wimp for trying to circumnavigate established parliamentary protocols and both the NDP and Conservatives missed the boat here - it just gave Martin a chance to put his spending and tax breaks out there in time for Christmas, We're going to end up right where we started, a Liberal minority government with either Whacky Jacky or the damn seperatists holding the actual reins of power.

If only the conservatives would replace Harper with someone with leadership skills, they might have a chance to win - but apparently they like finishing second.

I don't think that's accurate at all.

All three opposition leaders wanted to see the laws that are on the table right now get through Parliament... the most important of which was the energy rebate for low income people. There are a few more laws that will die on the books because we couldn't compromise and get three more weeks out of December.

In the end, the house will fall on Tuesday which is the fastest anyone could have brought down the house. There were no, confidence motions available prior to that. Martin would have had this much time anyway... you can't blame his actions on Layton

Does calling Layton Wacky actually make you feel better and is it really necessary? If anything he has been more statesman like than either Harper (the Liberals are in Bed with organized crime) or Martin (What me, worry?). He has done more to make this Parliament work than most.

I don't really want to see an NDP government but I would love it if they held around 50 seats and held the true balance of power.

For Harper to win this election, he needs to come out and say, "If you give us the balance of power we can work with NDP. It will send a clear message to Canadians that he will not try to push his Social Conservative adenda through. It would win him a lot more seats in Ontario which is where he needs to gain about 15 seats to take the balance of power.

My own opinion why harper will not win is his personal views towards gay marriage, abortion....etc. I think people view him as too extreme almost like Bush. I think we do a better job separating church and state, and canadians like that. Canadians don't like been told what to do, sure we don't mind you stealing or wasting our money, but don't fuck with any rights we have.
And my own opinion which is probably wrong and most certainly uneducated.



sorry typed all that out and missed the last paragraph you typed charlatan. i change my answer to what you just said!

I was just looking at the polls in the paper today... it suggests that the Liberals would get a majority if the election were held today. Go figure.

I guess we just have to remember that Kim Campbell had better than those kinds of figures going into her election and look where the PCs were after the campaign...


I think many Canadians don't think Martin is a bad leader, they just don't like the alternatives... either they are terrified of Harper and his social adgenda or they are terrified of Layton and the tax and spend brush he has been painted with... What is a middle of the road voter to do but support the Liberals...

Yup, it does. Layton had a chance to be a big, stand up player here, but he came off looking weak and sneaky.

I'll bet you any money we get almost exactly what we have right now, with maybe the Liberals getting a couple more seats.

again you put it perfectly.

exactly!

Weak and sneaky? Are we looking at the same political landscape? In my eyes Layton stood up and said, Let's get down to business and get the laws that the house wants to see passed... passed.

Both the Bloc and the Conservatives supported him on this. He did what good politicians do... he struck a compromise between those who would dig in their heels and stick around until March and those who would pull the plug now. He also agreed that if the compromise couldn't be reached he would sink the government as soon as possible. Which he did, when he seconded Harper's motion of non-confidence.

There was nothing weak, sneaky or double dealing there. It was good governance (or an attempt at it). If Harper even showed half of this sort of ability he would be prime minister right now instead of Martin.

Politicians who, in a minority government situation, can build consensus like this are "big stand up players".

Your opinion - in my opinion it was weak and sneaky. I'm sure we could go back and forth on this all day. Layton could've been the Man, instead he tried to circumvent established procedure. The NDP keeps getting the rules rewritten for it so they can maintain "official party" status and soak up more of my tax money. I really have little time for their strident wailings.

(And before anyone labels me an evil conservative, I'll probably vote Green)

No, I wasn't going to label you a Conservative rather I would say that you are holding the Liberal's party line on this whole mess. The Conservatives were backing the NDP on this move.

As for voting Green, they are largely a fiscal Conservative (not that that's a bad thing)... they are nothing like the greens in Europe.

I don't begrudge you your position on the NDP... many poeple feel that way about them. As I see it, they offer the balance that can't be found in the US. I've said it before, I don't really want to see them in power, rather I think they represent a voice that needs to be heard. As for them being a waste of taxpayers money... why not just abolish Parliament entirely?

What we really need is electoral reform so that representation is given to all the voices rather than just first past the post. With this sort of system, the Green party you support and spent your vote supporting would actually have representation in Parliament.

What I have to ask myself is how Martin is going to try to play the "I tried to avoid a holiday election but look at these Conservatives and NDP who forced me into it" when he turned down a compromise to ensure no holiday election would take place.

Seems kinda strange to me. I also regret that I will have to figure out the absentee ballot system to vote for my MP in Burnaby Douglas.

1) Actually, I said before "anyone" labels me a Conservative, not you specifically.

2) I find they are middle of the road financially, certainly more to the right than the NDP, and socially liberal. Ideally, I like fiscally conservative and socially liberal - and the Liberal Party actually fits this mold best, given how economically sensible they've been over the years. Fiscally, they are more conservative than the Republicans in the US, who spend like drunken sailors and run up their credit card bill to no end. However, I'd like to see the Greens get more of a push here and the Liberals, who always win my riding, don't need my vote.

3) I'd just prefer the NDP doesn't keep getting special treatment. Even when they lose official status (as they did federally under McLaughlin and in Ontario under Hampton) they keep getting the rules bent for them so they have more of a voice in parliament than they deserve based on performance.

4) I agree - I'd rather see a form of proportional representation, but one more workable with 4 or 5 major parties than you see in Europe or Israel where often, nothing gets done and governments fall every 6 months.

Actually Ace hits the nail on the as to why Layton's efforts to bring about the January compromise was genius.

On one hand, if the compromise was accepted by the Liberals, we get an election in early February, we get to see Gomery II before we vote, the Liberals don't get an extra eight weeks to buy their way to victory and we don't have a Christmas election

On the other hand, if they don't accept the compromise, the governement falls now (tonight actually), the Liberals don't have 10 extra weeks to buy their way to victory and ALL of the opposition gets to hold Martin responsible to a Christmas election by saying, we were being reasonable and offered a compromise... Martin was not being reasonable and forced a Christmas election.

Win-win. You can see why Harper and Ducieppe supported this effort.



I can understand your point on number three, but feel number four would solve this issue. First past the post had the NDP and the Conservatives getting greater portions of the popular vote than their number of seats reflects. As a result the Houses don't reflect the actual votes of the people.

If we had proportional representation, I think you would see the rise of more parties over time as people see the effectiveness of their votes. It might even allow for the rebirth of something like the PCs. I think over time you would see the rise of coalition governments rather than majority governments.

I don't see how a rejected comprimise absolves you of your actions afterwards?

"I want to shoot you in the head. I will offer a comprimise -- you give me your money, and I won't shoot you. Oh look what you made me do by rejecting my comprimise!"

Proportional Representation is tricky. I would not be willing to accept any PR system that gave parties (as opposed to MPs) more power than they have right now.

As it stands, if a party kicks an MP out of caucas, and the MP has the same support from voters, the MP gets to remain in parliament. MPs should be more beholden to their voters than to their party.

I also am against any voting system that is not human-verifiable at every stage. Any voting system that requires a computer to tabulate the votes has single-point-of-corruption issues.

More precicely, the virtue of our current system is that corrupting the voting system requires a conspiracy whose size is purportional to the number of votes corrupted. I want to maintain this feature.

Thirdly, locality of representation is important. Being a representative of "green party voters" is one thing, but that makes your constituancy nebulous. MPs should be geographically bound.

Can you generate any PR systems that have these properties?

The current FPTP system has many flaws. I don't want to replace the flaws of the current FPTP system with a system that lacks the virtues of the FPTP system.

Regarding the compromise... ultimately what it does is make the issue of a Christmas election a dead issue. Neither side can truly get any milage out of it they are both sharing in the repsponsibility of the election timing.

I agree with your take on if vis-a-vis the shooting but that isn't the point in this sort of political posturing... this manouver, gives the opposition an out and renders the "issue of a Christmas election" a non-issue.


As for proportional representation. My feeling on the matter is that it should be a combination of MPs elected by the electorate (based on "locality of representation") as well as representation based on a percentage of the popular vote gaining you X number of seats.

The system still functions as it does now with ballots being counted by "little old ladies in church basements".

How the riding would be redrawn and how the numbers would be carved out is another question.

My point is, offering to rob someone instead of shooting them does not absolve you of shooting them.

Saying "call an election in Febuary, or we will call an election in December" does not absolve you of calling an election in December. 3 parties voted for a December election, and one party for a Spring election.

If you care when the election is, then you know the positions of the various parties. 3 are for a Christmas election, one is for a Spring election.

If you divide the popular vote by party, those X seats are more bound to the party than to the electorate. If you "balance parliament" so that it matches the popular vote, then a massive chunk of parliament will be more beholden to party than to a particular electorate.

*nod*, it manages the "hard to cheat" requirement. It fails on the "MPs are beholden to their electorate more than the party" and "MPs are geographically bound" requirements.

Political parties are, if anything, too powerful under the current system. Any PR system that makes membership in a party more important is not good.

I have figured out how to do it, if you do away with the "one person -- one vote" in parliament:

Each riding has 10 seats. Each "seat" is a vote in the house of commons.

You run for a seat with a running mate. This is called a "slate".

The 10 seats are allocated in a pseudo-fair way amongst the slates voted for in the riding. If a slate has 50% of the votes, it gets roughly 5 seats.

The person running and their running mate split up the seats. The seats are s split, but the person running gets strictly more seats than the running mate.

Every person with at least 1 seat gets to vote in the HoC. The number of votes that person has is equal to the number of seats they have. Members of a slate, technically, have no responsibilities to each other once elected. In practice this may not hold.

Technical details:
The only purpose of the "running mate" is to reduce the varience in the number of people in the HoC, and somewhat reduce the number of votes one person can hold in the HoC. If your slate is barely elected (1 or 2 seats), your running mate does not get into the HoC.

Slate Seats/Candidate Seats/Running Mate Seats
0/0/0 ... 1/1/0 ... 2/2/0 ... 3/2/1 ... 4/3/1 ... 5/3/2 ... 6/4/2 ... 7/4/3 ... 8/5/3 ... 9/5/4 ... 10/6/4

The "running mate" is sadly more beholden to the candidates support than I'd like. But giving some MPs up to (theoretically) 10 times more votes than others also seems yucky.

Just wondering... can we say that Gomery brought down the Liberals?

Maybe in part. Systemic corruption tended to be the focal point out this way, not the report itself.