And now Belinda is a Liberal ...
Wow, what is the world coming to?
Can parliament work? Let's see. If the budget gets voted down, we'll vote in June. It'll be another minority. More squabbling for the next year. Another election. More squabbling. This could go on for awhile, no? Tomorrow will tell. Maybe Belinda will encourage some others to do the same.
Not that it really affects me. We're goin right-wing here ... and, despite a near 100% voter turnout, no one still seems to care.
posted by Mark Robinson at 10:03 AM
13 Comments:
not that i know much aboot aussie politics, but john howard's getting the boot? what's the dilio?
Friday, May 20, 2005 1:32:00 AM
Hmm, haven't heard about that. But, like I said, politics doesn't make it into the daily conversation much.
Mark
Friday, May 20, 2005 8:42:00 AM
it's a 100 per cent voter turnout because Oz-land mandates their peeps to vote, no?
Friday, May 20, 2005 11:25:00 AM
yep, that's true -- 100% voter turnout. but, in some cases, that is probably a bad thing.
Friday, May 20, 2005 11:28:00 AM
Well, now Belinda can go bake a big economic pie for the liberals....
It is going to be funny to watch a cabinet minister who can barely read the talking points she's given though.
As far as I'm concerned they lost their confidence vote last week, which makes their status as the legal government of Canada questionable. Upon touching down in Saskatchewan, the queen should have made a royal decree disolving parliament and calling an other election.
As far as I know, John Howard's government is ahead in the polls, and destined to win an other election. Shockingly, every government that went to war in Iraq has been returned to power, or (in Australlia's case) is likely to be, with the exception of Spain, but there was the whole issue of the train bombings several days before the election.
As for 100% voter turnout, it is a questionable policy, as Mark alluded to. In fact, given Mark's comments about the political engagement of the country, I would suspect it does not have the desired effect.
We'll we all know who wrote this...
Friday, May 20, 2005 11:51:00 PM
steve-o my-tassie-yers wrote that. ta-daaaah
i found it rather amusing that belinda's been given quite a big portfolio to handle. really, what does she know aboot that department? another sign that a-two-dollar-signs kissing gets you places. that, and money. sigh.
when will the liberals start to govern? i hate the feds. i hate my boss's boss's boss's boss's boss. ugh.
Saturday, May 21, 2005 12:07:00 AM
i think steve harper should keep up the good work. he's fightin the good fight, after all.
at least it'll have a majority next time around ... and not his.
Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:50:00 PM
Mark, I'm not sure who you're suggesting will have a majority the next time round? It is clear that it is not harper, are you suggesting Martin is going to pull of a majority? Layton definitely won't.
In any event, no matter who one supports, if you support the democratic institutions of the country, you can't be too happy that the current government is picking and choosing the confidence motions on which they would like to fall on. This is not how westminster parliamentary systems work.
Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:18:00 AM
Thanks for the response, Steve. I was just stirring the pot, really. And, yeah, I agree and of course am not too happy that our government is wasting away millions of dollars and promoting politicians of debatable quality to high posts in order to maintain their power. But, Harper cannot expect to gain anything in Ontario with his ongoing rhetoric. I suspect that the only thing holding the Liberals from a majority is the sponsorship scandal ... and Harper's recent gains are simply that. It's certainly not because they like his policies ...
I don't understand the logic. Wouldn't the Cdn people be more likely to support a party that is trying to make things work?
Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:30:00 PM
Mark, the liberals are toast in Quebec, the only seats they'll win are Montreal. They're also toast in the praries, which will go CPC and NDP.
Except for Vancouver they're toast in BC. Generally the governining party looses 7% of their pre-writ polling support on election day, so yes I'm quite sure that if there had been an election call there would be a CPC minority, which has its own problems, as Quebec would not elect and CPC members and separation is going to be a very large issue in Quebec for the next 4 years thanks to the Liberals. In any event, I'd be willing to accept a Liberal Majority if they had gone to the polls, the problem as I see it is that they have effectively broken the constitutional requirement of calling an election when they lost the confidence of the house, and this will set a horrible and problematic precedent for the future. I don't see the cost of the election nor the time out of the average Canadians schedule as too much to pay to uphoald our democratic traditions. The whole reason a government is supposed to either request the dissolution of parliament or hold a clear confidence vote, is to ensure the government in power does not use its sway to effect the outcome of the next votes, say by buying yourself a member of the opposition.
As for the policies that Ontarians are against from the CPC, I know there is a lot of opposition, but mostly people are opposed to the "hidden agenda", which no one can quite name. I totally understand people being against the CPC, who are upset on their stand for Gay Marriage, which is something I can totally understand, as I support it as well. However, I don't think there is much else in the platform that most Ontarian's would disagree with. In fact there is even some site up called Liberals for Harper, which Warren Kinsella (Chretien's right hand man) said raised some legitimate and politically correct points.
As for making government work, yes Canadians should want that, so long as the government is legal. The current government does not have that clear distinction. Jack Layton manages to claim he will vote the government down on corruption once they pass his budget with a straight face. So, he is not so much into making the government work, as getting his rewards (which will make him look good to his electorate next time around, so I understand why he is doing it, but it is not to make the government work).
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:21:00 PM
Ooops, one last point that the media seems to keep ignoring, and I can't figure out why. One of the central allegations at Gomery is that the Liberals consistently broke campaign finance laws, by apying people under the table with envelopes full of cash. Now, envelopes full of cash may make for good media, but the central issue should really be that the results of the previous elections are now clearly suspect. If the other campaigns stuck to the law, and followed campaign finance laws and the liberals broke it, then why are we to accept the current liberals as our govenrment. Did they break the laws getting elected last time? What about Chretien's two terms?
The fact that key liberals have admitted to being payed (and paying) under the table means their is no question of guilt, and the liberals have set up a trust fund to pay for these under the table deals. So, everyone agrees the liberals broke the election law, but no one seems to be interested in the bigger question. And it is a big deal! When the next sovergnty campaign happens in Quebec in the next few years, why should the separatists follow the campaign rules, if there is no indication the federalists will (if the Liberals are still in power).
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:29:00 PM
Interesting viewpoint. So, are you saying a few stuffed envelopes grossly affected the *results* of a previous election ... or are you saying they broke the law and are therefore an illegal government?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:13:00 PM
I think the point is that they have been caught breaking an election law, so they have to deal with legitimacy issues there. I think it is an unfortunate realty that every government has broken the law at some point. However, the election laws are the ones that are supposed to guarantee a democratic outcome, and so acknowledging that those were broken is a big problem. Another issue is the size of the inquiry that was necessary to discover it. Why should anyone believe that the overspending on the election was restricted to Quebec?
Personally, I don't suspect that the outcome was changed drastically as a total in previous elections, but it is difficult to say for sure. That is another reason to support having an immediate election, where elections Canada comes in and audits every party's spending like they were Revenue Canada.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:51:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home