[SAUNDERSAN]

The Bloc. In a coalition?

Yeah, right.

I don't think the Liberals or NDP are that stupid.

[bWn4h8QD]

I agree.

[TravelMan]

Didn't the Liberals just trigger a provincial election in Quebec?

[Tyncneiff]

Originally posted by CrONoS
If we're going into elections again, I'm ready to bet 20$, that will see conservatives with a lot of fewer votes. I wouldn't be surprised even if people would be "overthrown" the conservatives from the government. I'll take that bet. Who do we send the funds to for safe keeping?

The only way the Conservatives are overthrown is with Bloq support.

Do you have any idea how much poison would be involved in ROC if the Bloq were any part of defeating a government, or worse propping up a coalition?

I doubt very much many would care why. I know I don't, and I didn't vote Tory.

[DavidShreder]

Originally posted by Asher

The conservatives are losing more money than the other parties with this move.

Whether the other parties are incompetent at fundraising is their issue. If they can't raise money, why would they be able to run the country? Asher, I understand all that. I'm even not against the proposals. I just argue that this is plainly stupid in these times. We have other things to do...

I'm pretty sure, there many conservatives who even don't want this proposals to pass.

Edit: The goal is CLEARLY partisan, Harper know that he is strong right now, and he use that position to in order to be stronger in the future. For God sake, it's 30m$, I'm pretty sure he could have cut elsewhere, and he would have found a lot more of money.

[JackieC]

S. Harper: I wonder what we can do in order to pisses the hell out of every other political parties?

J. Flaherty: Lol! Cut their Funding!

S. Harper: LOL! LOL!

[Wluwsdtn]

Originally posted by CrONoS
S. Harper: I wonder what we can do in order to pisses the hell out of every other political parties?

J. Flaherty: Lol! Cut their Funding!

S. Harper: LOL! LOL! Maybe Dion should have run a candidate against May?

Maybe treatng the Greens as an auxilliary of the Liberals was not a good plan?

It's good politics.

[WFSdZuP3]

Originally posted by CrONoS


If I was him, I would return to University Of Montreal, far away from t.v. He already gassed it.

He gambled on an alliance with a forth-rate party for electoral victory.

Now he is crying about the consequences when he lost. Big time lost.

[arrendabomnem]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The only way the Conservatives are overthrown is with Bloq support.

Do you have any idea how much poison would be involved in ROC if the Bloq were any part of defeating a government, or worse propping up a coalition? Depends how the spin goes.

I like the idea of removing the subsidy as well but this move is pure Harper - POLITICAL.

I'll take a Conservative defeat any way it happens.

[ugosanchezo]

I can proudly say I voted "None of the above" in the last vote. Clearly the only sensible approach.

[Jeaxatoem]

Originally posted by Flubber



Well at least you are open-minded . I despise them all and the rigged system they play in.

I'm more a "let the people we elected try to govern" type. We have had two elections with similar results and I would think that another election right now would merely waste money and not accomplish much. Whether the Conservatives govern or some coalition . . . I don't really care as long as someone takes control and actually tries to make sense out of the mix of parties that make up our government

Again, this is the essence of the problem I have with Harper. I am not opposed to what he wants to do just how he does it. Harper was extremely critical of Martin for running a minority government as if it was a majority and not cooperating with the opposition (the ones more "people elected" than the conservatives btw).

But I'm with NYE in that I cannot see how the Liberals/NDP could work with the Bloc for long-- I can just see the political ads that that scenario would generate It will depend on the spin this takes. I have no doubt how it will spin in Alberta...

We just finished a nation election campaign wherein this idea of cutting political subsidies was NOT MENTIONED (provide me a cite if I am wrong) yet it is one of the first things the Conservatives want to do upon returning to Ottawa.

I see Harper's analysis as this:

a) The Opposition will back down and accept the cuts thereby leaving the Conservatives open to a big win against bankrupt opposition in the next vote

or

b) The Opposition will force an election on the issue and the Conservatives will win big on the issue of entitlements

or

c) The Opposition will form some sort of coalition and fail spectacularly leading to a big Conservative win in the next vote


All of these examples speak to political opportunism by Harper at a time when the nation has other priorities. This would not be favourable spin on the issue for Conservatives.

[DadaSeeva]

They should have made it part of their campaign. It's a good policy, too bad there is absolutely no mandate for it.

[Adeniinteme]

Introducing legislation immediately following an election to strip up to 2/3 of the funding of the opposition when NO MENTION of it was made during the election campaign is crass political opportunism. Period.

You (and Harper) seem to operate under the assumption a minority government can do whatever the hell it pleases.

[Ganoshenko]

Originally posted by Wezil
Introducing legislation immediately following an election to strip up to 2/3 of the funding of the opposition when NO MENTION of it was made during the election campaign is crass political opportunism. Period.

You (and Harper) seem to operate under the assumption a minority government can do whatever the hell it pleases. They can do whatever the hell it pleases. If they lose a confidence vote, so be it. You seem to think what they're doing is against the rules, it's not.

I'm not sure why you think there's this formal set of rules (if you do anything in the first X months of office, it needs to have been in your election platform?), because they do not exist.

The government in power -- the Harper governmnet -- can do whatever it wants to within the laws of this country. You didn't know that?

[adesseridopaw]

Originally posted by Asher

They can do whatever the hell it pleases. If they lose a confidence vote, so be it. You seem to think what they're doing is against the rules, it's not. I said no such thing. I said it was crass political opportunism. Yes, it is the sort of thing a party can lose a confidence vote over.

I'm not sure why you think there's this formal set of rules (if you do anything in the first X months of office, it needs to have been in your election platform?), because they do not exist.

I didn't say that. See above.

The government in power -- the Harper governmnet -- can do whatever it wants to within the laws of this country. You didn't know that? Your entire post was a huge red herring based upon something I didn't say. Want to try again?

[thierabess]

Originally posted by Asher


I voted. And I didn't vote like a child who is throwing a tantrum. Alright then. Those that didn't vote (as you argued I should) are apathetic. This obviously doesn't describe me.

"tantrum" - They count spoiled ballots but they don't count non-voters. The best tantrum I saw in the last campaign was you with your partisan blinders on. It was comical and almost pushed me to vote Liberal. If you are representative of Conservatives I want nothing to do with the party.

[ggandibazz]

Originally posted by Asher


So you're accusing the Conservatives of "playing politics"? I busted a gut yesterday when I read "Grits complain Tories playing Politics" as a headline. Please tell me that's not you? I've already explained how it is. Now you explain how it isn't.

If the tories do lose the confidence vote, it'll look terrible to the general public (who are already way too sick of elections) to go back again and spend $300M again just because the Liberals can't fundraise privately. I'm actually hoping this happens. Unless the Opposition forms a lasting and successful government. In this case the Conservatives will have screwed themselves.

Quite frankly I expect one or more of the parties to blink before Monday.

[zU8KbeIU]

Originally posted by Wezil


Yes, the voters that can't be bothered to vote are more likely to be won over than those that go to the polls. Good analysis. Yes. Look at the US election -- Obama specifically targeted people who haven't voted.

I've never heard of political parties worrying over how many spoiled ballots there are. They probably just assume all of the people spoiling ballots are either retarded, anarchists, or communists.

[BgpOoGI2]

Originally posted by embalmer42
Someone blinks.......




http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad...8/7567736.html

Cowards.

[CelexaNY]

Overall I want this government to govern. I want and expect them to push policies they really believe in, even if all 3 opposition parties oppose a given policy and if the government falls on an important matter, I can live with it.

I do not want the government to intentionally be smacking the opposition and daring them to bring the government down. Put simply I do not want Harper to be trying to engineer his own downfall. This did smack of that . In the end I am glad that someone backed down .

But if the Liberals are feeling frisky it could make for an interesting session. Lets imagine that the Conservatives propose something fundamental as a way to deal with this economic crises with which the three opposition nparties fundamentally disagree. If there is no "fear of an election" causing someone to abstain, it seems pretty inevitable that this government wopuld be somewhat short-lived.