Your opinion - Federal Election...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Ahhhh Thank you mistert! Explains the what, but not the how? Is it this that got the election ball rolling? I just am curious as to the timing of this issues with the elections. Does it appear they are "ducking out" From responsibility?

[Mister T 45020]

Ahhhh Thank you mistert! Explains the what, but not the how? Is it this that got the election ball rolling? I just am curious as to the timing of this issues with the elections. Does it appear they are "ducking out" From responsibility?

 

In government, there are what is called a confidence vote. The ruling party must have the confidence of the House of Commons to be functioning. The Budget usually is De Facto a confidence vote, but the Comtempt of Parliament motion that was tabled superseded it (a first in Canada). So yes, that's what started the election.

 

It's a question of timing by the parties. Personnally, i think Harper will be using this politically : The budget was not even debated. On the other hand, under the conservative rule, things happened while they were holding power AND having a public position that they were whiter than white ethically.

 

I hope this helps a bit ...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Oh Yes! Thank you mistert, that really clears a lot up for me.

[Mister T 45020]

Oh Yes! Thank you mistert, that really clears a lot up for me.

 

The pleasure is all mine, Sophia!

[JoyfulC 132299]

My concerns about a Conservative majority are:

 

1) It would allow Harper to continue and intensify his neo-liberal policies of shifting taxes off corporations and onto the backs of working people. These corporations enjoy the profits of selling their goods and services in this market -- they should pay their fair share. (see http://www.canadauncut.net )

 

2) Harper (and Ignatieff) seem to view Canada as a territory of the US. The US greatly pressures us to mirror their laws and policies (IP law, drug laws, immigration laws) and we need a strong leader who sees the mess the US is in, and can work with our biggest trading partner without genuflecting to it. We need a leader who reflects Canadian values (as opposed to multinational corporate values) to maintain and protect our sovereignty.

 

3) I find Harper's use of confidence votes and prorogations disturbing. (Although, perhaps with a majority, he wouldn't need them. Even scarier thought, when you look at how quick he is in a minority government to use every trick at his disposal to get his way, whilst knowing it does not reflect the will of the majority of Canadians. When he has a majority, then I think he'll use it to further a hidden agenda he'd never dare campaign on.)

 

4) Even if Harper gets a minority again, I think we will continue our march toward a privatized, for-profit prison system, such as the US has. And he will need Parliament to tighten laws and sentencing to fill these prisons. These prisons are modern slave labour camps, except that back in the day, those who profited from slaves carried the burden of sheltering and feeding them. With a private prison model, that burden will be on the tax payers. Private prisons are also useful for hiding true unemployment statistics and warehousing the mentally ill.

 

Technically, I don't get to vote in federal elections since on paper I'm not a citizen (unlike in my heart). But I sort of do because my husband has a vote, and he never voted before we were married -- he carries my vote. I doubt that the candidate I will choose will win in our riding, but that's who I'm going to suggest he vote for anyway.

 

And as for the dreaded "c" word -- imagine how quickly there'd be a coalition if the NDP ever got a minority government.

[Guest s******ecan****]

And as for the dreaded "c" word -- imagine how quickly there'd be a coalition if the NDP ever got a minority government.

 

Ha ha very true!

[ptgmbguy 120]

I personally think the country was running good and then it was trowen for a loop thanks to the small minded people who want a better place at the table...

I think Mr. Harper was on track for canada the others on track for themselfs.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

This election was brought on by the liberals at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of about $300 million. Polls show the liberals trailing the conservatives so I really wonder about their sanity. There was no major issue that caused a necessity of bringing down the government.

 

I don't like Harper and I agree with most of the dangers people warn about if he gets a majority government.

 

Best case - conservatives get another majority and the liberals try again to get a decent leader. If they elect Bob Rae, well I too will be voting conservative in the next election despite my misgivings. I lived through what Ontario suffered under Rae.

 

Hopefully a credible liberal leader will emerge.

[roamingguy 300292]

MPs may make a smaller salary than they might in the private sector, in terms of their official salary. But how many of them coincidentally get a gravy "consulting" job from one of their biggest campaign contributors the second they step out of office? How many just happen to have their blind-trust investments increase by hundreds of times while they're in office? They make out like bandits in way too many cases.

As far as the Bloc wanting to divide/break up Canada, it's the Cons and Libs who have signed agreements to allow american soldiers onto Canadian soil, which concerns me a lot more than giving sovereignty to people who want it.

 

Another thing, MP's (talking about your run of the mill MP's here) may make less than a comparable job in the private sector...but alot of these MP's aren't qualified, nor could hold a comparable job in the private sector.

They raise their hands when the party puppet masters tell them too, and reap the rewards of party loyalty

They serve 6 years and are entitled to a full pension...on the other hand, to get a full pension, I need to work 35 years...and thats in one of the front line public safety fields, dealing with the dregs of society

RG

[thompo69 198]

Another thing, MP's (talking about your run of the mill MP's here) may make less than a comparable job in the private sector...but alot of these MP's aren't qualified, nor could hold a comparable job in the private sector.

They raise their hands when the party puppet masters tell them too, and reap the rewards of party loyalty

They serve 6 years and are entitled to a full pension...on the other hand, to get a full pension, I need to work 35 years...and thats in one of the front line public safety fields, dealing with the dregs of society

RG

 

6 years and eligible for "full" pension? False. Just plain false.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I would like to know, If it is Harper's Government that is held in contempt, why should he be able to run for this election. Is that not like grounding your child to stay in his room, but has all his computer games? LOL!

[Guest s******ecan****]

Another thing, MP's (talking about your run of the mill MP's here) may make less than a comparable job in the private sector...but alot of these MP's aren't qualified, nor could hold a comparable job in the private sector.

 

 

Excellent point, and further to that a lot of these MP's represent rural ridigs where there are simply no jobs with comparable incomes. Most of the MP's from these ridings would still be living in these rural areas and unlikely earning anywhere near what they do in Ottawa.

 

You could cut MP's salary in half and every party would still be able to field a full slate of candidates and I believe they would still attract people of comparable value.

[ottawaadventurer 5114]

I don't want to belabor this point... but there is a reason we give pensions to MPs. 2 terms is eight years. There are very few Canadians who could leave their current job and expect to return after 8, or even 4 years. Without a pension (and some income guarantee), who in their right mind would run for parliament? We'd only have only have lawyers, doctors, and others who could step right back into their jobs after their absence. The idea here is that any Canadian with ideas and motivation should be able to run for office.

 

I know my employer wouldn't give me an 8-year leave of absence, and if I quit entirely to run, would have great difficulty reinserting myself into the workforce after such an absence.

 

Are things ideal? No, of course not. All I was trying to say is that is it far too easy of us to criticize politicians for being lazy, pampered Canadians... It's not that cut and dry.

 

quote=roamingguy;209068]Another thing, MP's (talking about your run of the mill MP's here) may make less than a comparable job in the private sector...but alot of these MP's aren't qualified, nor could hold a comparable job in the private sector.

They raise their hands when the party puppet masters tell them too, and reap the rewards of party loyalty

They serve 6 years and are entitled to a full pension...on the other hand, to get a full pension, I need to work 35 years...and thats in one of the front line public safety fields, dealing with the dregs of society

RG

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I would like to know, If it is Harper's Government that is held in contempt, why should he be able to run for this election. Is that not like grounding your child to stay in his room, but has all his computer games? LOL!

 

The key is that it was the Government that was found to be in contempt, not a person. The penalty the Government suffered was losing the confidence of the house, and therefore losing its ability to govern. It is now up to the voters to decide if members of this type of government deserve another chance at showing that, in future, they might be able to behave in accordance with Canadian democratic tradition.

[J Galt 337]

I don't want to belabor this point... but there is a reason we give pensions to MPs. 2 terms is eight years. There are very few Canadians who could leave their current job and expect to return after 8, or even 4 years. Without a pension (and some income guarantee), who in their right mind would run for parliament? We'd only have only have lawyers, doctors, and others who could step right back into their jobs after their absence. The idea here is that any Canadian with ideas and motivation should be able to run for office.

 

I know my employer wouldn't give me an 8-year leave of absence, and if I quit entirely to run, would have great difficulty reinserting myself into the workforce after such an absence.

 

 

 

 

They could apply for EI-sponsored retraining for a new career, if they didn't feel entitled to better benefits than the rest of us.

[jg24 3708]

We must keep in mind that the Committe that found Harper in contempt was made up of a majority of opposition members. Of course they would find this way they wanted an election the only other way to do this was vote against the budget which they didn't want to do

 

The contempt was based on they didn't give the cry baby Fiberals,NDP or Bloc certain papers it was confirmed in the hearing the papers they were in contempt for still had Cabinet Secreacy issues which is common in Govt and could not be released this was all about an election

[Guest s******ecan****]

have only have lawyers, doctors, and others who could step right back into their jobs after their absence. ]

 

That is pretty much the current situation even with the pension plan, which is in a word obscene.

 

There used to be this notion of "public service" whereby people went into politics not to line their pockets but to give something back.

 

Their Pensions should be in line with rest of us. If they leave after 4 or 6 or 8 or whatever years, the contributions they made as well as the ones made by the Gov go into a locked in RRSP which will be available to them when they reach retirement age.

[PistolPete 61421]

But thanks ekimout. I thought I would post it and see after a couple of days if there was views and takes on it.

 

This Vote Compass is raising a lot of eye brows, in the sense it is coming from the CBC who of course are staunch Liberal supporters,I mean who else bailed them out year after year.

 

Of course we as tax payers are paying for the CBC to be ran. Apparently, this Vote Compass is getting a lot of heat where Conservative supporters are being lead to vote Liberal,regardless of the different way they answer the questionaire.

 

Some senior's that are Conservative back bone supporters might seek Elections Canada to get involved in this Vote Compass, that could possibly be rigged.

 

Just goes to show you when it comes time to elections any tactic would be used by any party.

 

Last detail, I for one am a huge supporter of our military, always have been and always will, I have an uncle buried overseas from WW2 and had other family members that fought in the wars.

 

How can we ever defend our country if our military does not have the right and proper equipment. Years ago our military were borrowing equipment from other countries, thanks to the Liberal cut backs in military spending years back. Our aircraft could not even communicate with others because of poor equipment.

 

Our military is years behind some of the other countries, so I'm all for spending money on improved equipment, may it be fighter jets,ships or what have you. Look around what is happening in the middle east. How are we going defend our own country with out dated equipment?

 

I take the Liberal position of the new fighter jets as a slap in the face to our troops that defend our country, and support other countries in need.

 

 

 

 

Pete, that's a great post. The CBC was promoting the Vote Compass over the weekend, so I decided to check it out. Wasn't sure what the results would be (Liberals?) but was quite interested.

 

The results...it appears I'm closer to the Liberal party. It's what I thought going into the questionaire. While I don't share all of their views, it's the party that I was closest to.

[ottawaadventurer 5114]

Actually, the irony is that the Conservatives have provided more support to the CBC than other governments - at least that was being reported yesterday...

[PistolPete 61421]

Actually, the irony is that the Conservatives have provided more support to the CBC than other governments - at least that was being reported yesterday...

 

The Conservative has provided the CBC with a record amount of funding while the Liberals cut funding to it by hundreds of millions of dollars while in power. The Conservatives are not heroes in this situation. Not providing additional funding was the very least it could have done.

 

Not only are the Canadian taxpayers on the hook. We in fact pay for the biggest Liberal Propaganda mouth piece the CBC.

 

The little liberal twist all still there. No wonder Mr. Iggy wants us to bail them out.

[J Galt 337]

"How are we going defend our own country with out dated equipment?"

 

Defend it from what? The only threats to our country are coming from Ottawa and Washington. Next time your governmedia wants you to be afraid of the big scary muslims, remember, you're 500x more likely to be killed by a cop than a "terrorist."

[scribbles 6031]

I am in full agreement with PP on supporting the military; if we're going to have one, equip it, otherwise don't bother.

 

However.

 

The issue here is not that the Conservatives want to equip the military. Nor is it that the Liberals don't want to, which I disagree with them on. The issue is that the fighters are NOT the right equipment for what we use them for, and experts have identified others that are better options. Even the Americans are skeptical of these machines.

Bigger problem yet, Harper refuses to fess up to how much these things are actually going to cost, or where the money is coming from. For all the money that the Conservatives have spent on military equipment, not ONE machine has been delivered. And, for all the promises, everyone is left scratching their head as to where the money is coming from.

 

He won't admit to the cost because we can't afford them. Why other options aren't being looked at is confusing, unless it's just a desire to be the first country in the world with this particular unit in the air. And, that's just a stupid reason.

[PistolPete 61421]

Really? One of this biggest countries with a huge land mass, one of the top countries to live in, one of the top countries in the G-10, one that bounced back from economic diversity in the past couple of years, but a country that lacks military defence, regardless who might be a terrorist or who we may defend against without proper equipment..it would fail..maybe not in my life time, but what the more younger generation to come?

 

Big scrary muslins???

 

 

BTW if you act in a reasonble matter I don't think a cop would kill me or someone else that was a reasonable individual.

 

"How are we going defend our own country with out dated equipment?"

 

Defend it from what? The only threats to our country are coming from Ottawa and Washington. Next time your governmedia wants you to be afraid of the big scary muslims, remember, you're 500x more likely to be killed by a cop than a "terrorist."

 

Additional Comments:

Yes the actually cost is in question I agree with your statement!

 

I am in full agreement with PP on supporting the military; if we're going to have one, equip it, otherwise don't bother.

 

However.

 

The issue here is not that the Conservatives want to equip the military. Nor is it that the Liberals don't want to, which I disagree with them on. The issue is that the fighters are NOT the right equipment for what we use them for, and experts have identified others that are better options. Even the Americans are skeptical of these machines.

Bigger problem yet, Harper refuses to fess up to how much these things are actually going to cost, or where the money is coming from. For all the money that the Conservatives have spent on military equipment, not ONE machine has been delivered. And, for all the promises, everyone is left scratching their head as to where the money is coming from.

 

He won't admit to the cost because we can't afford them. Why other options aren't being looked at is confusing, unless it's just a desire to be the first country in the world with this particular unit in the air. And, that's just a stupid reason.

[scribbles 6031]

In fairness, if we were ever attacked the US would be obligated to defend us out of self-interest, and they have a much bigger and better equipped military than we could ever have. Our only credible threat to sovereignty is, paradoxically, our ally to the south, and they would walk all over us if they were determined to.

 

Our military is really about foreign intervention, and is better suited to a secondary or supportive role. We've always been excellent at that, because we have some of the best trained and skilled people. Giving them an obscenely expensive piece of aircraft that doesn't properly support the missions they fly, particularly if it turns out we can't actually afford to buy them, is a bigger insult in my opinion than asking them to use the CF-18s.

[MightyPen 67414]

Yup, I don't think we need to arm ourselves against some kind of Cold War-type massive military invasion; I just can't see that happening, or our modest forces being able to withstand the most likely though bizarre culprits (the U.S. and Russia).

 

What we DO need is border surveillance and security: a decent navy patroling our vast coastline, working in concert with a modest air force geared almost exclusively to observation/search/rescue.

 

Then we need what we've always been famous for: rock-hard troops trained in all kinds of conditions. Our country reeks of trees. We've got some awesome ranger troops, and that's where we can specialize and really stand out.

 

Finally, some lift capability so we can go intervene around the world where it suits our national philosophy.

 

I imagine we can get by with our current fighter jets, patched up and maintained 'til doomsday. The only things they're likely to be used against are errant civilian aircraft, anyway.

 

(Clearly this is not a subject I deem dangerously political. ;) )