That proportional representation thing was a joke, gee that is what I want, more appointed politicians who answer to their party rather than actual constituents. No matter what system you use people who voted for the loser are going to feel unrepresented, unless there is a switch to a system where every law passed is passed by a referendum.
uhh ... we have a system now that allows 33% of our population to govern the country ... many countries have moved to this electoral system and it best reflects the desires of the population ...
right now the environment is getting no love whatsoever - considering this is a major issue for the majority of canadians ... you can't tell me proportional representation wouldn't addresss that ...
one issue eh? maybe you should take a look at there platform then...cause im taking a giant leap here in saying that you have not.
yeah I'm going to second that. the whole "one issue" party is nonsense, take the time to educated yourself rather then be a sheep following ridiculous tv commercials etc.
uhh ... we have a system now that allows 33% of our population to govern the country ... many countries have moved to this electoral system and it best reflects the desires of the population ...
right now the environment is getting no love whatsoever - considering this is a major issue for the majority of canadians ... you can't tell me proportional representation wouldn't addresss that ...
I don't buy the argument that other countries do it so it must be good. Other countries have a presidential systems that have been successful, hell other coutries have dictatorships and to some people those aren't so bad.
I just don't like the idea that if party X gets 10% of the vote they automatically get 10% of a given pool of seats since you know those seats are going to go to the most loyal croniest party hacks that each party can find, and since those people they have direct constituents they answer to on one but their party leader (and since they are party seats what if the person in them disagrees with his party). We already have enough appointed positions in the federal government why do we need more (ie the senate)? I would much rather see the senate get reformed rather then this type of system of more appointed politicians added on top of it.
I don't buy the argument that other countries do it so it must be good. Other countries have a presidential systems that have been successful, hell other coutries have dictatorships and to some people those aren't so bad.
I just don't like the idea that if party X gets 10% of the vote they automatically get 10% of a given pool of seats since you know those seats are going to go to the most loyal croniest party hacks that each party can find, and since those people they have direct constituents they answer to on one but their party leader (and since they are party seats what if the person in them disagrees with his party). We already have enough appointed positions in the federal government why do we need more (ie the senate)? I would much rather see the senate get reformed rather then this type of system of more appointed politicians added on top of it.
i'm just saying it's worked effectively in other countries in that there isn't an increase in bureacracy but rather it forces politicians to work together to accomplish things ...
but a party who gets 10% of the vote gets absolutely NO say right now ... how is that a good thing? ... as far as the cronies go - that's how it is now ... it's no different ... it may not be a perfect solution but it's leap years better than what we have now ...
here in ontario - we have a faltering economy partly because of the policies of our federal gov't and they don't really care ... so, while you may fear that your riding may not be heard ... we have an entire province being ignored now ...
That proportional representation thing was a joke, gee that is what I want, more appointed politicians who answer to their party rather than actual constituents.
you think that your mp is looking out for your peoples interests and not his parties already?? I think your missing the point here.
you think that your mp is looking out for your peoples interests and not his parties already?? I think your missing the point here.
Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day if I think he isn't then I can vote for his opponent in the next election, and he loses his seat. If an MP is appointed to represent a party and sit in on of a pool of bonus seats, then as long as the party is happy with him he has a job. Tell me how I vote someone out in one of those seats? Tell me how someone in one of those seats crosses the floor if they are unhappy with their party?
Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day if I think he isn't then I can vote for his opponent in the next election, and he loses his seat. If an MP is appointed to represent a party and sit in on of a pool of bonus seats, then as long as the party is happy with him he has a job. Tell me how I vote someone out in one of those seats? Tell me how someone in one of those seats crosses the floor if they are unhappy with their party?
elected representatives should NOT be allowed to cross the floor and join other parties ... they should declare themselves independent and immediately ask for a by-election ...
elected representatives should NOT be allowed to cross the floor and join other parties ... they should declare themselves independent and immediately ask for a by-election ...
how about softwood? wheat? marijuana decriminalization? Newfoundland's oil?
He has fallen in line with US foreign policy stances at almost every turn, at a time when the US govt has their lowest support EVER! (besides, who cares what the Libs started, we all know they're just as bad...the Cons are supposed to be representing US in the here and now, right?)
and ya....the arctic sovereignty thing was laughable.
He quietly made a lot of our problems go away...
I am not convinced that the Liberals woudn't have done the exact same things with regards to softwood, wheat, and oil. Both Liberal and Conservative alike are driven by corporate interests, and neither party would make economic decisions that would threaten Canada's economic position vis a vis the US.
Pot decriminalization. Um, who cares? That's a make or break issue for people? Regardless of what Harper says/does, if you want to smoke weed in this country, you can do so and you probably won't have many problems unless you're a serious dealer.
I am not convinced that the Liberals woudn't have done the exact same things with regards to softwood, wheat, and oil. Both Liberal and Conservative alike are driven by corporate interests, and neither party would make economic decisions that would threaten Canada's economic position vis a vis the US.
Pot decriminalization. Um, who cares? That's a make or break issue for people? Regardless of what Harper says/does, if you want to smoke weed in this country, you can do so and you probably won't have many problems unless you're a serious dealer.
I honestly don't know many details of the trade disputes, I do remember Canada winning appeal after appeal thru NAFTA (checked:SEVEN TIMES) on softwood......Do you honestly think Harper could have negotiated in the best interest of Canada and got a fair deal in months, when the Libs tried for years and couldn't do it? I know the Libs are inept, but c'mon....As for wheat and newfie oil, I am still reading up...but the immediate controversy always seems to involve Harper in bed with UScorp.
I never said Decriminalization was a make or break issue. You asked for examples on how the Cons have been taking it in the ass from the US…it is supported by a pretty large majority of Canadians, and you're right... both parties are bending over. The libs introduced a complete sham of a bill, and let it die twice...while the Cons have been trying for mandatory minimums and ramping up enforcement (familiar?). Both parties are ignoring public will, the Ontario courts, and the Senate study. why?
btw- Possession charges can still ruin lives. It could be as simple as someone accidentally dropping a bag in your car... you get pulled over and the cop spots it....permanent record, legal fees, restricted travel, career repercussions, etc, etc.....and...you feel shame.
really - it's amazing you can do nothing for 3 years and offer up no real significant platform and be in the running for a majority gov't ... although listening to mp debate on cbc this morning - i now know why harper doesn't allow his mp's to speak ...
if harper leads a minority - he will pass more tax cuts that the other parties will not vote against because they will be portrayed as bringing the country into another election ...
where are all the progressive conservatives?? ... all them so called red-tories ... we need that party to split again otherwise - we're heading down the way of the US ...
where are all the progressive conservatives?? ... all them so called red-tories ... we need that party to split again otherwise - we're heading down the way of the US ...
unfortunately im going to have to agree with you on this one too... ):
if harper leads a minority - he will pass more tax cuts that the other parties will not vote against because they will be portrayed as bringing the country into another election ...
where are all the progressive conservatives?? ... all them so called red-tories ... we need that party to split again otherwise - we're heading down the way of the US ...
I agree with you...tho as much as I am taxed to death, I'm not convinced that cutting taxes is the best thing to be doing right now when we're in a deficit and our healthcare and Education (at least in Ontario it is) is in crisis, inflation is going crazy with the wheat and rice prices skyrocketing, and lets not talk about how gas prices have affected stuff.
I agree we need another split on the right side. I think that these Conservatives are TOO right...this country does not need a Canadian Alliance majority.
We also need the freaking Bloq not to get ALL the seats (or all but a few) in Quebec. We don't need a party that can be bribed to vote for something thats bad for the country because there is a small clause that benefits Quebec.
I respect Gilles Duceppe (sp) and all but he and his party don't and never will give a shit about anyone outside of Quebec...and it makes me cringe knowing they've held the balance of power for the last 2 years or whatever its been.
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
I agree with you...tho as much as I am taxed to death, I'm not convinced that cutting taxes is the best thing to be doing right now when we're in a deficit and our healthcare and Education (at least in Ontario it is) is in crisis, inflation is going crazy with the wheat and rice prices skyrocketing, and lets not talk about how gas prices have affected stuff.
I agree we need another split on the right side. I think that these Conservatives are TOO right...this country does not need a Canadian Alliance majority.
We also need the freaking Bloq not to get ALL the seats (or all but a few) in Quebec. We don't need a party that can be bribed to vote for something thats bad for the country because there is a small clause that benefits Quebec.
I respect Gilles Duceppe (sp) and all but he and his party don't and never will give a shit about anyone outside of Quebec...and it makes me cringe knowing they've held the balance of power for the last 2 years or whatever its been.
what i don't understand is those who have left the bloc are moving conservative?? ... how does that work - ideologically they are polar opposites ...
in any case - it appears strategic voting is the only way to keep harper out of the pmo ... which is not gonna happen ...
to zod:
i definitely believe in a mixed proportional representation voting system but i do not think voting green is a vote for the cons ... especially here in toronto where the cons have no love ...
i don't know about you all but i have voted on every election ranging from mun. to federal and this year i don't like any of my options. i am almost thinking of not voting. i don't like the harper but i don't know if i should just vote for voting sake or should i just sit this one out.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i don't know about you all but i have voted on every election ranging from mun. to federal and this year i don't like any of my options. i am almost thinking of not voting. i don't like the harper but i don't know if i should just vote for voting sake or should i just sit this one out.
i don't know about you all but i have voted on every election ranging from mun. to federal and this year i don't like any of my options. i am almost thinking of not voting. i don't like the harper but i don't know if i should just vote for voting sake or should i just sit this one out.
do none of the other parties interest you?
try and see beyond the politicking - there are options ...
try and see beyond the politicking - there are options ...
i try to see past the bullshit. i am very interested in politics and part of my job is very political (i am a social worker) i go to where teh leaders are talking. i have talkled and asked questions to harper, Deon, may and also layton and i just don't believe any of them. they all sound good but i don't just have a feeling abotu them.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i try to see past the bullshit. i am very interested in politics and part of my job is very political (i am a social worker) i go to where teh leaders are talking. i have talkled and asked questions to harper, Deon, may and also layton and i just don't believe any of them. they all sound good but i don't just have a feeling abotu them.
uhh ... if you are relying on feeling then there really isn't much to add i suppose ...
hopefully, someone rings true to you before the election!
I guess not in TO, but they'res going to be alot of ridings where the Cons get 38 percent of the vote, but the other 62 percent is split between all the other parties, so the majority doesn't rule, the minority does. So in some ridings the green/ndp/lib vote might not make a diff, but in alot of them the center/left will be so split, it'll make it easy for the cons to win.
I thought about a proportional representation government, my only negative towards that is that only one PM in the history of Canada was vote in over 50 percent of the popular vote. (Mackenzie King i think it was?). So if we did proportional rep, we'd continually get minority governments.
I like minority governments, but I don't know how well a country could do if that's all that ever had and the ability to pass when law was needed.
Thats why I think the double vote system would work better, it would make a majority, but for the party the voters think is the lesser evil.
yeah ... i agree - hence the strategic voting comment i made previously ...
i think minority gov'ts work best in Canada - especially if you have parties that are willing to work together ... a liberal majority was poor for the country and a harper majority would be worse ...
many countries work in the same mold and have been functional ...
I didn't think the Liberals were that bad. Before they came in we had a huge defecit spiraling out of control (which can't be blamed entirely on the conservatives, because alot of it game from infrastructure programs the libs started a long time ago, where they'd match 50/50 on universities/hospitals and whatever). But the Cretien Liberals came in, got the budget under control, and actually started paying it off (which I think is great, because its less interest we're paying, which snowballs, freeing up more tax dollers to deal with retiring baby boomers).
The biggest gaff Cretien did was the Ad Scandal, but as far as Canadian governments go who had 11 years of power. I never thought it was bad enough to overshadow everything else they accomlished.
I'm just afraid with all the vote splitting, that the conservatives will get a majority with the lowest popular vote ever obtained from a majority government.
the liberals executed a centrist-right agenda under paul martin ... the reason why we started gaining surpluses was because they cut spending to many programs ... programs that affect us today mainly health care ... these wait times and shortages are due to policies enacted by the liberals ...
they became too tied to lobbyists and corporations and governed ineffectively with watered down bills after watered down bills ... we are behind so many G8 nations on areas because of policies they enacted ... there were basically too many old school liberals and i am happy to see some new prominent faces like justin trudeau and gerrard kennedy ...
but as far as the vote splitting goes - you are absolutely right ... it's the way the party mix is now - having said that tho ... people just aren't paying attention ... look at a riding like Oshawa here in ON - town based largely on auto manufacturing ... town that is suffering because of an indifferent federal gov't - yet they vote conservative ... that concerns me more ...
wow ... elizabeth may calling for strategic voting ... even at the expense of green party growth ...
edit: ok - she's clarifying her comments now ... she is basically tip-toeing around it but essentially she is saying harper is the worst choice for gov't and that people should vote for what would best suit their wishes for the country ... and that the best situation would be a liberal minority with green seats to help move the agenda forward ...
Harper government opened patronage doors before election, records show
Last Updated: Monday, September 29, 2008 | 8:28 PM ET Comments150Recommend169The Canadian Press
The Harper government approved 148 appointments to federal boards and agencies, long used as rewards for supporters of the party in power, as the election neared, The Canadian Press has learned.
Cabinet handed out the posts in three rounds, the first only two days before Parliament recessed for the summer, the second on July 30, at peak holiday time for politicians and political journalists, and the third less than a week before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Sept. 7 election call.
Harper, who railed against Liberal patronage in the 2006 election, later failed to deliver on a campaign pledge to put an independent commission in charge of vetting cabinet appointments.
He shelved the idea after opposition MPs refused to ratify his nomination of Gwyn Morgan, a Calgary oil baron who is also a friend of the prime minister, as the commission chair.
It's difficult to determine how many of the recent appointments went to members of the federal Conservative party or to provincial Progressive Conservative parties.
Many have had no comment on their new jobs, but interviews and public records outlining the backgrounds of others suggest Harper was courting the party faithful in a number of cases.
A retiring Halifax physician who was named to the Canada Pension Plan review board described how he received a call from a prominent provincial Conservative who asked him if he was interested in the spot.
The physician, Ronald Gregor, said he helped a prominent provincial Progressive Conservative candidate campaign in his neighbourhood in the last Nova Scotia election, but only for a week of door-knocking.
He described how his name first went to the office of Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the federal political minister for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and then to the office of Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg.
A retired Ottawa lawyer who also received an appointment to the pension review board, whose members primarily hear applications for disability pensions, said he simply told a prominent Ontario Progressive Conservative he was looking for something to do in his retirement.
The lawyer, Murray Young, said he told longtime provincial cabinet minister Norm Sterling, who represented an Ottawa riding, that he "wanted something, a week a month."
Young said he doesn't know Environment Minister John Baird, the federal political minister for the Ottawa region, and has never met him. He said that after he spoke with Sterling he found a CPP board vacancy on a government website, but he couldn't remember the name of the site.
The 148 appointments to low-profile but rewarding agencies — including the pension review board, employment insurance referee boards, immigration and refugee appeal boards and port authorities — were among a host of jobs filled by cabinet in the three rounds, government records show.
Other posts filled included superior court and national parole board vacancies, both of which involve a screening process, and higher-echelon nominations to federal commissions or Crown corporation boards.
Salary or other remuneration for some of the agencies, such as the CPP review board, are established by Treasury Board and not published. The port authorities, responsible for establishing their own levels of remuneration, likewise do not publish the figures.
But, as an example, Privy Council Office documents show that part-time members of the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board receive a per diem between $480 and $560. Full-time members are paid between $95,500 and $112,300 annually.
The appointees included a 2007 director of the Vancouver Quadra federal riding association, Marlie Oden; a past defeated provincial Tory in Newfoundland and Labrador, Wilson Wiseman; and a Sudbury, Ont., woman, Lyne Demers, who worked for the whip's office in the Ontario government of Mike Harris.
Others included in the Harper appointments were Brian Ketcheson of St. Andrews, Man., who lost an election bid for the provincial Tories in 1995; Faith Collins of Victoria, who ran unsuccessfully for the federal Progressive Conservatives in 1993; and David Saxton of Yarmouth, N.S., a provincial Progressive Conservative supporter and donor.
A Conservative party spokesman played down the significance of the appointments.
"We don't believe political involvement should preclude people from serving in these capacities," said Mike Storeshaw, the communications director for Treasury Board President Vic Toews, who is on leave to act as a party spokesman during the election.
Storeshaw also dismissed the extent of the appointments and the fact they were made as the government was likely preparing for an election call, contending that a snap election could have occurred anytime with a minority Parliament.
But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized Harper for not carrying through with his promise to change the patronage system.
"It's business as usual, rewarding party faithful," said Adam Taylor, acting national director of the federation.
OTTAWA - A grim economic forecast and damning charges of plagiarism against Stephen Harper have injected some drama into the federal election campaign on the eve of the televised leaders debates.
A longtime Conservative spokesman and speechwriter resigned from his job at Tory campaign headquarters Tuesday after admitting a speech he wrote for Harper in 2003 borrowed heavily without attribution.
And the prime minister formally requested Tuesday that the economy be given more space - up to half the allotted time - in the two-hour debate format.
The leaders square off Wednesday night in French and on Thursday in English.
i don't think that's gonna really play out in any significant manner ... the liberals should be hammering the fact that the $12 billion surplus the cons inherited can potentially be a defecit in less than 2 years ... tax cuts that actually have done nothing except whitled away a surplus that could probably come handy now ... i also think they should hammer the party for their secrecy and their changes to the accountability act that makes it even harder to make politicians accountable and also the patronage stuff ... to show that harper is really full of shit ...
i don't think that's gonna really play out in any significant manner ... the liberals should be hammering the fact that the $12 billion surplus the cons inherited can potentially be a defecit in less than 2 years ... tax cuts that actually have done nothing except whitled away a surplus that could probably come handy now ... i also think they should hammer the party for their secrecy and their changes to the accountability act that makes it even harder to make politicians accountable and also the patronage stuff ... to show that harper is really full of shit ...
What do you think is stopping the libs from doing that?
Comments
uhh ... we have a system now that allows 33% of our population to govern the country ... many countries have moved to this electoral system and it best reflects the desires of the population ...
right now the environment is getting no love whatsoever - considering this is a major issue for the majority of canadians ... you can't tell me proportional representation wouldn't addresss that ...
yeah I'm going to second that. the whole "one issue" party is nonsense, take the time to educated yourself rather then be a sheep following ridiculous tv commercials etc.
I don't buy the argument that other countries do it so it must be good. Other countries have a presidential systems that have been successful, hell other coutries have dictatorships and to some people those aren't so bad.
I just don't like the idea that if party X gets 10% of the vote they automatically get 10% of a given pool of seats since you know those seats are going to go to the most loyal croniest party hacks that each party can find, and since those people they have direct constituents they answer to on one but their party leader (and since they are party seats what if the person in them disagrees with his party). We already have enough appointed positions in the federal government why do we need more (ie the senate)? I would much rather see the senate get reformed rather then this type of system of more appointed politicians added on top of it.
i'm just saying it's worked effectively in other countries in that there isn't an increase in bureacracy but rather it forces politicians to work together to accomplish things ...
but a party who gets 10% of the vote gets absolutely NO say right now ... how is that a good thing? ... as far as the cronies go - that's how it is now ... it's no different ... it may not be a perfect solution but it's leap years better than what we have now ...
here in ontario - we have a faltering economy partly because of the policies of our federal gov't and they don't really care ... so, while you may fear that your riding may not be heard ... we have an entire province being ignored now ...
We need conservative pot smokers.
Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day if I think he isn't then I can vote for his opponent in the next election, and he loses his seat. If an MP is appointed to represent a party and sit in on of a pool of bonus seats, then as long as the party is happy with him he has a job. Tell me how I vote someone out in one of those seats? Tell me how someone in one of those seats crosses the floor if they are unhappy with their party?
elected representatives should NOT be allowed to cross the floor and join other parties ... they should declare themselves independent and immediately ask for a by-election ...
I am not convinced that the Liberals woudn't have done the exact same things with regards to softwood, wheat, and oil. Both Liberal and Conservative alike are driven by corporate interests, and neither party would make economic decisions that would threaten Canada's economic position vis a vis the US.
Pot decriminalization. Um, who cares? That's a make or break issue for people? Regardless of what Harper says/does, if you want to smoke weed in this country, you can do so and you probably won't have many problems unless you're a serious dealer.
I honestly don't know many details of the trade disputes, I do remember Canada winning appeal after appeal thru NAFTA (checked:SEVEN TIMES) on softwood......Do you honestly think Harper could have negotiated in the best interest of Canada and got a fair deal in months, when the Libs tried for years and couldn't do it? I know the Libs are inept, but c'mon....As for wheat and newfie oil, I am still reading up...but the immediate controversy always seems to involve Harper in bed with UScorp.
I never said Decriminalization was a make or break issue. You asked for examples on how the Cons have been taking it in the ass from the US…it is supported by a pretty large majority of Canadians, and you're right... both parties are bending over. The libs introduced a complete sham of a bill, and let it die twice...while the Cons have been trying for mandatory minimums and ramping up enforcement (familiar?). Both parties are ignoring public will, the Ontario courts, and the Senate study. why?
btw- Possession charges can still ruin lives. It could be as simple as someone accidentally dropping a bag in your car... you get pulled over and the cop spots it....permanent record, legal fees, restricted travel, career repercussions, etc, etc.....and...you feel shame.
she better be at them debates!
if harper leads a minority - he will pass more tax cuts that the other parties will not vote against because they will be portrayed as bringing the country into another election ...
where are all the progressive conservatives?? ... all them so called red-tories ... we need that party to split again otherwise - we're heading down the way of the US ...
I agree with you...tho as much as I am taxed to death, I'm not convinced that cutting taxes is the best thing to be doing right now when we're in a deficit and our healthcare and Education (at least in Ontario it is) is in crisis, inflation is going crazy with the wheat and rice prices skyrocketing, and lets not talk about how gas prices have affected stuff.
I agree we need another split on the right side. I think that these Conservatives are TOO right...this country does not need a Canadian Alliance majority.
We also need the freaking Bloq not to get ALL the seats (or all but a few) in Quebec. We don't need a party that can be bribed to vote for something thats bad for the country because there is a small clause that benefits Quebec.
I respect Gilles Duceppe (sp) and all but he and his party don't and never will give a shit about anyone outside of Quebec...and it makes me cringe knowing they've held the balance of power for the last 2 years or whatever its been.
what i don't understand is those who have left the bloc are moving conservative?? ... how does that work - ideologically they are polar opposites ...
in any case - it appears strategic voting is the only way to keep harper out of the pmo ... which is not gonna happen ...
to zod:
i definitely believe in a mixed proportional representation voting system but i do not think voting green is a vote for the cons ... especially here in toronto where the cons have no love ...
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
do none of the other parties interest you?
try and see beyond the politicking - there are options ...
i try to see past the bullshit. i am very interested in politics and part of my job is very political (i am a social worker) i go to where teh leaders are talking. i have talkled and asked questions to harper, Deon, may and also layton and i just don't believe any of them. they all sound good but i don't just have a feeling abotu them.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
uhh ... if you are relying on feeling then there really isn't much to add i suppose ...
hopefully, someone rings true to you before the election!
yeah ... i agree - hence the strategic voting comment i made previously ...
i think minority gov'ts work best in Canada - especially if you have parties that are willing to work together ... a liberal majority was poor for the country and a harper majority would be worse ...
many countries work in the same mold and have been functional ...
the liberals executed a centrist-right agenda under paul martin ... the reason why we started gaining surpluses was because they cut spending to many programs ... programs that affect us today mainly health care ... these wait times and shortages are due to policies enacted by the liberals ...
they became too tied to lobbyists and corporations and governed ineffectively with watered down bills after watered down bills ... we are behind so many G8 nations on areas because of policies they enacted ... there were basically too many old school liberals and i am happy to see some new prominent faces like justin trudeau and gerrard kennedy ...
but as far as the vote splitting goes - you are absolutely right ... it's the way the party mix is now - having said that tho ... people just aren't paying attention ... look at a riding like Oshawa here in ON - town based largely on auto manufacturing ... town that is suffering because of an indifferent federal gov't - yet they vote conservative ... that concerns me more ...
edit: ok - she's clarifying her comments now ... she is basically tip-toeing around it but essentially she is saying harper is the worst choice for gov't and that people should vote for what would best suit their wishes for the country ... and that the best situation would be a liberal minority with green seats to help move the agenda forward ...
and his ode to old school politics continues ... :rolleyes:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/29/harper-patronage.html
***********
Harper government opened patronage doors before election, records show
Last Updated: Monday, September 29, 2008 | 8:28 PM ET Comments150Recommend169The Canadian Press
The Harper government approved 148 appointments to federal boards and agencies, long used as rewards for supporters of the party in power, as the election neared, The Canadian Press has learned.
Cabinet handed out the posts in three rounds, the first only two days before Parliament recessed for the summer, the second on July 30, at peak holiday time for politicians and political journalists, and the third less than a week before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Sept. 7 election call.
Harper, who railed against Liberal patronage in the 2006 election, later failed to deliver on a campaign pledge to put an independent commission in charge of vetting cabinet appointments.
He shelved the idea after opposition MPs refused to ratify his nomination of Gwyn Morgan, a Calgary oil baron who is also a friend of the prime minister, as the commission chair.
It's difficult to determine how many of the recent appointments went to members of the federal Conservative party or to provincial Progressive Conservative parties.
Many have had no comment on their new jobs, but interviews and public records outlining the backgrounds of others suggest Harper was courting the party faithful in a number of cases.
A retiring Halifax physician who was named to the Canada Pension Plan review board described how he received a call from a prominent provincial Conservative who asked him if he was interested in the spot.
The physician, Ronald Gregor, said he helped a prominent provincial Progressive Conservative candidate campaign in his neighbourhood in the last Nova Scotia election, but only for a week of door-knocking.
He described how his name first went to the office of Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the federal political minister for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and then to the office of Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg.
A retired Ottawa lawyer who also received an appointment to the pension review board, whose members primarily hear applications for disability pensions, said he simply told a prominent Ontario Progressive Conservative he was looking for something to do in his retirement.
The lawyer, Murray Young, said he told longtime provincial cabinet minister Norm Sterling, who represented an Ottawa riding, that he "wanted something, a week a month."
Young said he doesn't know Environment Minister John Baird, the federal political minister for the Ottawa region, and has never met him. He said that after he spoke with Sterling he found a CPP board vacancy on a government website, but he couldn't remember the name of the site.
The 148 appointments to low-profile but rewarding agencies — including the pension review board, employment insurance referee boards, immigration and refugee appeal boards and port authorities — were among a host of jobs filled by cabinet in the three rounds, government records show.
Other posts filled included superior court and national parole board vacancies, both of which involve a screening process, and higher-echelon nominations to federal commissions or Crown corporation boards.
Salary or other remuneration for some of the agencies, such as the CPP review board, are established by Treasury Board and not published. The port authorities, responsible for establishing their own levels of remuneration, likewise do not publish the figures.
But, as an example, Privy Council Office documents show that part-time members of the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board receive a per diem between $480 and $560. Full-time members are paid between $95,500 and $112,300 annually.
The appointees included a 2007 director of the Vancouver Quadra federal riding association, Marlie Oden; a past defeated provincial Tory in Newfoundland and Labrador, Wilson Wiseman; and a Sudbury, Ont., woman, Lyne Demers, who worked for the whip's office in the Ontario government of Mike Harris.
Others included in the Harper appointments were Brian Ketcheson of St. Andrews, Man., who lost an election bid for the provincial Tories in 1995; Faith Collins of Victoria, who ran unsuccessfully for the federal Progressive Conservatives in 1993; and David Saxton of Yarmouth, N.S., a provincial Progressive Conservative supporter and donor.
A Conservative party spokesman played down the significance of the appointments.
"We don't believe political involvement should preclude people from serving in these capacities," said Mike Storeshaw, the communications director for Treasury Board President Vic Toews, who is on leave to act as a party spokesman during the election.
Storeshaw also dismissed the extent of the appointments and the fact they were made as the government was likely preparing for an election call, contending that a snap election could have occurred anytime with a minority Parliament.
But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized Harper for not carrying through with his promise to change the patronage system.
"It's business as usual, rewarding party faithful," said Adam Taylor, acting national director of the federation.
The federal election is Oct. 14.
OTTAWA - A grim economic forecast and damning charges of plagiarism against Stephen Harper have injected some drama into the federal election campaign on the eve of the televised leaders debates.
A longtime Conservative spokesman and speechwriter resigned from his job at Tory campaign headquarters Tuesday after admitting a speech he wrote for Harper in 2003 borrowed heavily without attribution.
And the prime minister formally requested Tuesday that the economy be given more space - up to half the allotted time - in the two-hour debate format.
The leaders square off Wednesday night in French and on Thursday in English.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indepth/fed_election/s/capress/080930/delection/fedelxn_main
What do you think is stopping the libs from doing that?
because they don't have the guts.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)