Hockey Fan Forums banner

21 - 26 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
It certainly does require a pair to lie to an entire country so they might vote for you, then go against your word and do exactly what you said you wouldn't. Sure the librals could have faced some problems this term but thats nothing to what they will in the next election, weather or not Dions still the leader.

Are you refering to Harper's lie about taxing income trusts?
Or perhaps his lie about having integrity then inviting Emerson to cross the floor within hours of the previous election?
Or perhaps his lie about govt. transparency when he ran the most secretive govt in recent history even going as far as to sue people so he could avoid being questioned in the HoC?
Or perhaps Harpers outrage about how terrible it is for the Liberals to join with the Bloc when he tried the exact same thing in 2004?

OR how about Harpers lie that he wanted to work with the other parties to make this govt. work and then the first thing he does is try to cripple them all financially?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Are you refering to Harper's lie about taxing income trusts?
Or perhaps his lie about having integrity then inviting Emerson to cross the floor within hours of the previous election?
Or perhaps his lie about govt. transparency when he ran the most secretive govt in recent history even going as far as to sue people so he could avoid being questioned in the HoC?
Or perhaps Harpers outrage about how terrible it is for the Liberals to join with the Bloc when he tried the exact same thing in 2004?

OR how about Harpers lie that he wanted to work with the other parties to make this govt. work and then the first thing he does is try to cripple them all financially?
Yet Harper's never sank as low as to forming a coalition, unless you're refering to the conservatives merging with a very similar canadian alliance (which btw, wasn't right after an election and people were very aware of it happening). Much unlike a liberal party joining with a seperatist party whos only interest is Quebec; rendering any western liberal votes basically in support of Quebec.

There's no way any politician can keep everyone happy but there's no reason to stray away from democracy to get your way and thats exactly what the coalition is trying to do. You can Harper bash all you want, but in the end who ever has the most support will be in power. With such a big difference between the opposition parties ideologies, they should know better than to merge just after an election. As a result they'll all likely loose alot of votes next election.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Yet Harper's never sank as low as to forming a coalition, unless you're refering to the conservatives merging with a very similar canadian alliance (which btw, wasn't right after an election and people were very aware of it happening). Much unlike a liberal party joining with a seperatist party whos only interest is Quebec; rendering any western liberal votes basically in support of Quebec.

There's no way any politician can keep everyone happy but there's no reason to stray away from democracy to get your way and thats exactly what the coalition is trying to do. You can Harper bash all you want, but in the end who ever has the most support will be in power. With such a big difference between the opposition parties ideologies, they should know better than to merge just after an election. As a result they'll all likely loose alot of votes next election.
Harper tried to form a coalition with the Bloc in 2004, to overthrow Paul Martin. Sorry to ruin your illusion of your glorious leader.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Just a joke about what's happening in politics right now in Canada. The conservative party won the recent elections. The liberals, new democrats and the bloc québécois had agreed to reverse the minority government by forming a coalition until the governor general had to cut a trip to Europe short in order to deal with the issue. :)
Not quite right, JL. The Conservatives have a minority government, but they never 'won' nor do they have the right to govern because our constitution says that in a minority situation, the minority government must have the confidence of the House to be able to truly govern as the next government.

When Harper proposed this bill last year, it included no spending to really stimulate the economy (going against world view and keynesian actions that believe some speding and a small deficit can be helpful to get your economy going again) no public funding for the other parties so essentially depriving the other parties of money (but the conservatives would get money as usual) , depriving public servants of their right to strike, and a couple of other things.

The opposition parties disagreed with this and weregoing to vote on it. If they had been able to , they would have brought the government down. This however despite what people have said, need not result in a nother election. But since if they voted and the conservatives have lost the confidence of the House, my point is that just because they 'won' a 'first past the post' election (I think first past the post is a dumb system of voting but that is a topic for another thread) does not mean they were 'given the right to govern by the people' That is simply wrong information.

but there's no reason to stray away from democracy to get your way and thats exactly what the coalition is trying to do.
In what way? What happened here IS democracy.
 
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
Top