I don't know what you guys think the COns. did well, they did most of what they said they'd do, but it doesn't mean they did well. The 3 leaders in the Liberal leadership run would be better Prime Minister than Harper. Conservatives will lose the next election, my early prediction.
They need more Quebec seats, or more Ontario seats, they will lose some in Quebec cause Liberals voters will just go back to the Liberals since the Cons. are just going down in public opinion and the LIbs seem to be looking forward to re-open the Constitution (about fucking time). I don't think the Cons. will win more seats in Ontario either, so it leaves them with another minority, or a Liberal minority, the later is more credible. We'll see soon enough...
obviously the environmental thing irks me the most but their disinterest in compromising to all canadians is a close second ... they are answering to their base and their base only ... you would think a minority gov't wanting a majority mandate would try and compromise a little?
obviously the environmental thing irks me the most but their disinterest in compromising to all canadians is a close second ... they are answering to their base and their base only ... you would think a minority gov't wanting a majority mandate would try and compromise a little?
Exactly, and that's why i think they're doing such a bad job, from the Israel vs. Hezbollah war, to environment, to cuts + cuts +cuts. Of course our Conservative friends will say that i'm exagarating and that it's not that bad, but i believe the Cons have failed to accomplish what they were looking for, acheiving a majority government, that will be impossible, they'll struggle to get a minority.
I was just reading how the Canadian wind energy organisation was worried about the lack of support from the current administration, they were happy cause in the previous four years, wind energy made significant gain in Canada with government support, but since our super Stephen Harper is in charge, NIET, NADA, NOTHING, RIEN.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Exactly, and that's why i think they're doing such a bad job, from the Israel vs. Hezbollah war, to environment, to cuts + cuts +cuts. Of course our Conservative friends will say that i'm exagarating and that it's not that bad, but i believe the Cons have failed to accomplish what they were looking for, acheiving a majority government, that will be impossible, they'll struggle to get a minority.
I was just reading how the Canadian wind energy organisation was worried about the lack of support from the current administration, they were happy cause in the previous four years, wind energy made significant gain in Canada with government support, but since our super Stephen Harper is in charge, NIET, NADA, NOTHING, RIEN.
well ... it helps to know that you got one entire province locked up ...
anyhoo - if you guys do consider the environment to be important - then hopefully, you see the true colours of this gov't with their policies ...
I do consider it to be important ... Where we differ is in your choice of a different but equally ineffective party policy. Both Cons and Libs have basically done nothing.
I don't know what you guys think the COns. did well, they did most of what they said they'd do, but it doesn't mean they did well. The 3 leaders in the Liberal leadership run would be better Prime Minister than Harper. Conservatives will lose the next election, my early prediction.
They need more Quebec seats, or more Ontario seats, they will lose some in Quebec cause Liberals voters will just go back to the Liberals since the Cons. are just going down in public opinion and the LIbs seem to be looking forward to re-open the Constitution (about fucking time). I don't think the Cons. will win more seats in Ontario either, so it leaves them with another minority, or a Liberal minority, the later is more credible. We'll see soon enough...
I actually wouldn't have a huge problem with a Liberal minority government the next time around. Or another Conservative minority, for that matter. Ideally, though, it won't be Ignatieff running the show. I'd much prefer Bob Rae.
I actually wouldn't have a huge problem with a Liberal minority government the next time around. Or another Conservative minority, for that matter. Ideally, though, it won't be Ignatieff running the show. I'd much prefer Bob Rae.
The best politcal climate for our country is definetly a minority government of some type.....I think next time around it will be a Liberal minority...a Liberal majority IMHO will only be achieable through a revival in Quebec (where I also believe the Tories will lose all their seats next time around).....
I may shock you guys to hear it, but I am NOT hell-bent on seeing a Harper majority government. I am content with the last result, hoping that the Liberals have learned a lesson. I do wish the Liberals, assuming they take power again, would do something effective with regards to gun violence (and crime in general), rather than kowtowing to urban Canada's naive view of gun control. Beyond that, the differences between Lib and Con are not that big a deal to me. One wishes that both parties would take climate control more seriously.
I may shock you guys to hear it, but I am NOT hell-bent on seeing a Harper majority government. I am content with the last result, hoping that the Liberals have learned a lesson. I do wish the Liberals, assuming they take power again, would do something effective with regards to gun violence (and crime in general), rather than kowtowing to urban Canada's naive view of gun control. Beyond that, the differences between Lib and Con are not that big a deal to me. One wishes that both parties would take climate control more seriously.
My wish is that one would make it a priority.....but alas with our goverment system is designed a minority is the best way to go.....keeps everyone in check.....
Oh, and there is one other issue where the Libs trump the Cons for me, and that is gay marriage.
Do not even get me going on that proposed legaslation the Tories were thinking of rolling out.....what was it the Defence of Religion Act....what rubbish that was....that had bad news for that party written all over it....
I do consider it to be important ... Where we differ is in your choice of a different but equally ineffective party policy. Both Cons and Libs have basically done nothing.
although they didn't do nearly enough ... the liberals did something ... to compare the two is simply not reasonable ... i've already explained in earlier posts the difference ... this is not status quo - this is a step backwards ...
although they didn't do nearly enough ... the liberals did something ... to compare the two is simply not reasonable ... i've already explained in earlier posts the difference ... this is not status quo - this is a step backwards ...
I'll say it one more time ... Signing an agreement and then doing nothing to honor it is NOT DOING SOMETHING!
At least in my book.
I'll say it one more time ... Signing an agreement and then doing nothing to honor it is NOT DOING SOMETHING!
At least in my book.
and i'll say it one more time ... there were rebate programs for making homes more efficient - cancelled by tories ... many industries (especially the polluting ones) were to undertake changes to reduce emissions under a plan that would have shown results by 2008 but they scrapped them because the tories said they didn't have to do it anymore ... these are all steps backwards ...
Quebec as a nation? Absolument!
For Canada's sake, Liberal delegates must back Michael Ignatieff's unity idea, says La Presse's ANDRÉ PRATTE
ANDRÉ PRATTE
Next month, during their party's national convention, Liberals from across the country will be asked to vote on a resolution recognizing "the Quebec nation within Canada," a resolution that was overwhelmingly approved last Saturday by the Liberal Party's Quebec wing.
Many delegates will have profound reservations about this resolution. The debate probably will be heart-rending for Pierre Trudeau's heirs. For Canada's sake, they should vote in favour.
The strongest argument against Michael Ignatieff's idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada is that reopening the unity file risks fuelling the separatist cause. The risk certainly exists. Yet, we also know that doing nothing -- as Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae suggest -- carries its own risks. When Jean Chrétien became prime minister, he thought burying the constitutional issue forever would solve the Quebec problem. It nearly worked -- except for the last two weeks of the 1995 referendum campaign.
Today, after years of "doing nothing," sovereignty is as high as ever in the polls. Are Canadian politicians to close their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for the best? That would be irresponsible. Does that mean the Prime Minister should rapidly convene a constitutional conference with the premiers? Certainly not. That is not what Mr. Ignatieff and his Quebec supporters propose. As Liberals and federalists, they are acutely aware of the resistance existing in English Canada toward any form of recognition of Quebec's specificity and, for that matter, any kind of constitutional negotiation. That is why the original resolution was amended, so the second paragraph now reads "that the Liberal Party of Canada will create an expert task force with the mandate of reporting to the next leader of the party on possible ways and the appropriate timing to officialize this historical and social reality."
In effect, that means the Liberal Party would make a gesture of goodwill toward Quebeckers without committing to a specific constitutional process or timetable. That is precisely what is needed: a period during which federal Liberals, and other Canadians, would calmly discuss the issue without being forced into a deal. Those who believe, as I and many Quebec federalists do, that it is important that the Quebec National Assembly eventually endorse the Canadian Constitution will use the time to explain their point of view to other Canadians and to listen to their concerns. Would another word than "nation" be better accepted? How can we prevent the sort of problems that derailed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords? How can we, Quebeckers, try to meet other Canadians' concerns?
We should not be naive, of course. Separatists will say that the process is too slow, that a political, non-constitutional recognition of Quebec is not enough, that the government of Quebec needs more powers (Why? Which ones?). Federalists should not let themselves be distracted by those tactics. Most Quebeckers will appreciate any sincere effort made on their behalf. If federal politicians act wisely and prudently, if they debate the issue intelligently and passionately, they will have Quebec voters on their side.
I understand the anger and impatience that many Canadians feel when they hear about Quebec's "demands." I hope they will allow me to warn them that Canada will only ignore the issue at its own peril.
I would also ask them to reflect on what former astronaut Marc Garneau, as committed a Canadian as you will find, wrote in these pages last month: "This problem will not go away by itself. The longer we wait the greater the risk. We must find a way to recognize Quebec's legitimate aspirations, not for independence but for recognition and reconciliation."
Interested Canadians should also read the report of the Liberal Party's Task Force on the Federation, headed by Martin Cauchon, a Bob Rae supporter: "In our opinion, the more Quebec feels recognized for what it really is, the more it will want to reclaim its place in the federation and bolster its contribution to Canada's growth and evolution."
So this is not only Michael Ignatieff's idea. It is a new, prudent, sincere attempt by Canadians from Quebec to assure that Canada becomes a more united and stronger country. Living in Quebec, facing the separatist threat day in and day out, they are absolutely convinced that silence or indifference or paralysis is not an option. Those Quebeckers are in no rush. But they are eager to start.
André Pratte is editorial pages editor of La Presse.
the more i hear about this ignatieff guy - the more i think he's either the dumbest politician out there or he he is just plain stupid ...
granted this motion doesn't force the liberals to do anything just like the clean air act ... still tho ... why bring this thing up?? ... it makes absolutely no sense ... moronic ...
the more i hear about this ignatieff guy - the more i think he's either the dumbest politician out there or he he is just plain stupid ...
granted this motion doesn't force the liberals to do anything just like the clean air act ... still tho ... why bring this thing up?? ... it makes absolutely no sense ... moronic ...
I'm not sure if you're talking about the quebec nation thing and the Ignatieff proposition, but if yes, note that Ignatieff proposal was to re-open the Constitution, but it's the USUAL ROC and LIBERAL opposition to this fact that made the Liberals party changing there proposition to something un-official, Ignatieff point/stand is on the money (in my opinion).
But you know what, all this is great for sovereignist, more ROC negationism about Quebec nation and more refusal to re-open the Constitution, more people in Quebec are leaning towards sovereignty, as i said on numerous occasions, it's the Statu quo that is unnaceptable for the VAST majority of Quebecers, federalist or sovereignist, Ignatieff want to break that Statu quo, sorry but i gotta say congratulations to him (and it takes courages, to propose that in the Liberal party, the Trudeau party), and bullshit to all those Liberals members who are just scared of the outcome. They (ROC and Liberals mostly) would like this problem to fade away without making any change to the constitution, it won't, this was Trudeau thoughts, 25 years ago, and some Liberals members and most Canadians still think this way.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
So in other news....I hear the NDP made the Conservatives blink yesterday by threatening to bring down the governmenton the horrid Clean Air Act bill...about freaking time Jack did something productive....didn't know if he had been missing Parliament or what....
Also what are peoples take on the Conservatives decision to tax trust companies.....just another example of government, of any kind, lying through their teeth to get a vote.
So in other news....I hear the NDP made the Conservatives blink yesterday by threatening to bring down the governmenton the horrid Clean Air Act bill...about freaking time Jack did something productive....didn't know if he had been missing Parliament or what....
Also what are peoples take on the Conservatives decision to tax trust companies.....just another example of government, of any kind, lying through their teeth to get a vote.
Agree, Jack has finally done something. More than the Conservatives blinking the Liberals are shitting their pants with the thought of an election being forced while they are leaderless and with no policies.
On the Trust Company thing I don't have a problem. Their stance was given a certain business environment. The business environment changed and so did the policy. I see this more as good governance than any credibility issue.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Agree, Jack has finally done something. More than the Conservatives blinking the Liberals are shitting their pants with the thought of an election being forced while they are leaderless and with no policies.
On the Trust Company thing I don't have a problem. Their stance was given a certain business environment. The business environment changed and so did the policy. I see this more as good governance than any credibility issue.
i will give harper credit for allowing this to goto a parliamentary committee although, not much will happen as we are gonna be in another election ...
i agree with the trust move however, i do think that if the liberals made the promise and backed out (like they usually do), that the cons would be all over it ...
Agree, Jack has finally done something. More than the Conservatives blinking the Liberals are shitting their pants with the thought of an election being forced while they are leaderless and with no policies.
On the Trust Company thing I don't have a problem. Their stance was given a certain business environment. The business environment changed and so did the policy. I see this more as good governance than any credibility issue.
Yes but don't forget that the Liberals can choose to vote against the NDP if Layton don't wait till they have a chief, Liberals + Conservatives = NDP lost. Again not convince with Layton political flair, even if i agree with his stance...
Agree about the Trust thing, i have no problem with it, it's just that they broke some kind of a promise (government promise), but i see no problem with this future policy.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i will give harper credit for allowing this to goto a parliamentary committee although, not much will happen as we are gonna be in another election ...
i agree with the trust move however, i do think that if the liberals made the promise and backed out (like they usually do), that the cons would be all over it ...
Agree on both counts, except that we will only be in another election if indeed Harper decides to push the bill through unchanged, something he won' try to do ... Because the chance for success is nil.
i will give harper credit for allowing this to goto a parliamentary committee although, not much will happen as we are gonna be in another election ...
i agree with the trust move however, i do think that if the liberals made the promise and backed out (like they usually do), that the cons would be all over it ...
Still lied and usually the current lie is what hold's prominent favour in the mind's of voters.....
Agree, Jack has finally done something. More than the Conservatives blinking the Liberals are shitting their pants with the thought of an election being forced while they are leaderless and with no policies.
Besides letting his MPs make ill-informed comments about our troops in Afghanistan, that is.
But yeah. This is a Layton move I support.
Yes but don't forget that the Liberals can choose to vote against the NDP if Layton don't wait till they have a chief, Liberals + Conservatives = NDP lost. Again not convince with Layton political flair, even if i agree with his stance...
I think this will be a litmus test for the Liberals. Will they do what's best for Canada and push for stronger environmental policy, possibly prompting an election. Or will they just look after the Liberal party and screw the environment and the Canadian citizen's they represent.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Agree on both counts, except that we will only be in another election if indeed Harper decides to push the bill through unchanged, something he won' try to do ... Because the chance for success is nil.
this gov't is accomplishing nothing ... we all know that ... harper knows this ... right now - they are governing with a disdain ... especially as it relates to ontario ...
harper is carving out a plan to win a majority - he cannot do anything unless he gets it ... no one likes any of his bills ... they don't speak to all canadians ...
Still lied and usually the current lie is what hold's prominent favour in the mind's of voters.....
this lie is no different than the one's the liberals told ... ultimately, they are still governing to their base ... so, that won't change ... the question is whether or not the people who voted conservatives as a protest to liberal mismanagement go back ...
this gov't is accomplishing nothing ... we all know that ... harper knows this ... right now - they are governing with a disdain ... especially as it relates to ontario ...
harper is carving out a plan to win a majority - he cannot do anything unless he gets it ... no one likes any of his bills ... they don't speak to all canadians ...
Most of your points are debatable. Less debatable is your first one about the current government "not doing much". I actually agree, the government is focusing largely on day-to-day running of the country, as opposed to working radical new policies into the Canadian fabric. In this, its not so different from the plethora of Liberal and Con governments we've seen since MacDonald.
If Harper had a majority, maybe things would be different. Like I said before, I'm fairly happy with the situation. The Liberals got the message they deserved to get, but Harper isn't in a position to do anything too drastic.
I think this will be a litmus test for the Liberals. Will they do what's best for Canada and push for stronger environmental policy, possibly prompting an election. Or will they just look after the Liberal party and screw the environment and the Canadian citizen's they represent.
there is no way a vote of non-confidence would have passed ... layton knows that ... the liberals are leadership-less ... they would most likely abstain ... but what it would do is put out there even more how utterly disastrous this so called environmental plan is ... and the cons do not want to make it an election issue ... this is why they were able to win last election - the environment was not a topic and this is where they are weakest ...
so, whatever it takes to turn voters off the topic is in their best interests ... the liberals are useless until they elect a leader ...
Comments
obviously the environmental thing irks me the most but their disinterest in compromising to all canadians is a close second ... they are answering to their base and their base only ... you would think a minority gov't wanting a majority mandate would try and compromise a little?
Exactly, and that's why i think they're doing such a bad job, from the Israel vs. Hezbollah war, to environment, to cuts + cuts +cuts. Of course our Conservative friends will say that i'm exagarating and that it's not that bad, but i believe the Cons have failed to accomplish what they were looking for, acheiving a majority government, that will be impossible, they'll struggle to get a minority.
I was just reading how the Canadian wind energy organisation was worried about the lack of support from the current administration, they were happy cause in the previous four years, wind energy made significant gain in Canada with government support, but since our super Stephen Harper is in charge, NIET, NADA, NOTHING, RIEN.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
well ... it helps to know that you got one entire province locked up ...
I do consider it to be important ... Where we differ is in your choice of a different but equally ineffective party policy. Both Cons and Libs have basically done nothing.
I actually wouldn't have a huge problem with a Liberal minority government the next time around. Or another Conservative minority, for that matter. Ideally, though, it won't be Ignatieff running the show. I'd much prefer Bob Rae.
The best politcal climate for our country is definetly a minority government of some type.....I think next time around it will be a Liberal minority...a Liberal majority IMHO will only be achieable through a revival in Quebec (where I also believe the Tories will lose all their seats next time around).....
My wish is that one would make it a priority.....but alas with our goverment system is designed a minority is the best way to go.....keeps everyone in check.....
Do not even get me going on that proposed legaslation the Tories were thinking of rolling out.....what was it the Defence of Religion Act....what rubbish that was....that had bad news for that party written all over it....
although they didn't do nearly enough ... the liberals did something ... to compare the two is simply not reasonable ... i've already explained in earlier posts the difference ... this is not status quo - this is a step backwards ...
I'll say it one more time ... Signing an agreement and then doing nothing to honor it is NOT DOING SOMETHING!
At least in my book.
and i'll say it one more time ... there were rebate programs for making homes more efficient - cancelled by tories ... many industries (especially the polluting ones) were to undertake changes to reduce emissions under a plan that would have shown results by 2008 but they scrapped them because the tories said they didn't have to do it anymore ... these are all steps backwards ...
the Rotterdam convention (toxic waste - asbestos): voted against
convention on indigenous rights (we actually were one of the key countries to start this thing): one of two countries to vote against
convention on deep sea trawling: voted against
access to clean water: against
For Canada's sake, Liberal delegates must back Michael Ignatieff's unity idea, says La Presse's ANDRÉ PRATTE
ANDRÉ PRATTE
Next month, during their party's national convention, Liberals from across the country will be asked to vote on a resolution recognizing "the Quebec nation within Canada," a resolution that was overwhelmingly approved last Saturday by the Liberal Party's Quebec wing.
Many delegates will have profound reservations about this resolution. The debate probably will be heart-rending for Pierre Trudeau's heirs. For Canada's sake, they should vote in favour.
The strongest argument against Michael Ignatieff's idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada is that reopening the unity file risks fuelling the separatist cause. The risk certainly exists. Yet, we also know that doing nothing -- as Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae suggest -- carries its own risks. When Jean Chrétien became prime minister, he thought burying the constitutional issue forever would solve the Quebec problem. It nearly worked -- except for the last two weeks of the 1995 referendum campaign.
Today, after years of "doing nothing," sovereignty is as high as ever in the polls. Are Canadian politicians to close their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for the best? That would be irresponsible. Does that mean the Prime Minister should rapidly convene a constitutional conference with the premiers? Certainly not. That is not what Mr. Ignatieff and his Quebec supporters propose. As Liberals and federalists, they are acutely aware of the resistance existing in English Canada toward any form of recognition of Quebec's specificity and, for that matter, any kind of constitutional negotiation. That is why the original resolution was amended, so the second paragraph now reads "that the Liberal Party of Canada will create an expert task force with the mandate of reporting to the next leader of the party on possible ways and the appropriate timing to officialize this historical and social reality."
In effect, that means the Liberal Party would make a gesture of goodwill toward Quebeckers without committing to a specific constitutional process or timetable. That is precisely what is needed: a period during which federal Liberals, and other Canadians, would calmly discuss the issue without being forced into a deal. Those who believe, as I and many Quebec federalists do, that it is important that the Quebec National Assembly eventually endorse the Canadian Constitution will use the time to explain their point of view to other Canadians and to listen to their concerns. Would another word than "nation" be better accepted? How can we prevent the sort of problems that derailed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords? How can we, Quebeckers, try to meet other Canadians' concerns?
We should not be naive, of course. Separatists will say that the process is too slow, that a political, non-constitutional recognition of Quebec is not enough, that the government of Quebec needs more powers (Why? Which ones?). Federalists should not let themselves be distracted by those tactics. Most Quebeckers will appreciate any sincere effort made on their behalf. If federal politicians act wisely and prudently, if they debate the issue intelligently and passionately, they will have Quebec voters on their side.
I understand the anger and impatience that many Canadians feel when they hear about Quebec's "demands." I hope they will allow me to warn them that Canada will only ignore the issue at its own peril.
I would also ask them to reflect on what former astronaut Marc Garneau, as committed a Canadian as you will find, wrote in these pages last month: "This problem will not go away by itself. The longer we wait the greater the risk. We must find a way to recognize Quebec's legitimate aspirations, not for independence but for recognition and reconciliation."
Interested Canadians should also read the report of the Liberal Party's Task Force on the Federation, headed by Martin Cauchon, a Bob Rae supporter: "In our opinion, the more Quebec feels recognized for what it really is, the more it will want to reclaim its place in the federation and bolster its contribution to Canada's growth and evolution."
So this is not only Michael Ignatieff's idea. It is a new, prudent, sincere attempt by Canadians from Quebec to assure that Canada becomes a more united and stronger country. Living in Quebec, facing the separatist threat day in and day out, they are absolutely convinced that silence or indifference or paralysis is not an option. Those Quebeckers are in no rush. But they are eager to start.
André Pratte is editorial pages editor of La Presse.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061026.COQUEBEC26/TPStory/National
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I happen to agree with the stance on number 2.
I'd like more info on 3 and 4.
granted this motion doesn't force the liberals to do anything just like the clean air act ... still tho ... why bring this thing up?? ... it makes absolutely no sense ... moronic ...
I'm not sure if you're talking about the quebec nation thing and the Ignatieff proposition, but if yes, note that Ignatieff proposal was to re-open the Constitution, but it's the USUAL ROC and LIBERAL opposition to this fact that made the Liberals party changing there proposition to something un-official, Ignatieff point/stand is on the money (in my opinion).
But you know what, all this is great for sovereignist, more ROC negationism about Quebec nation and more refusal to re-open the Constitution, more people in Quebec are leaning towards sovereignty, as i said on numerous occasions, it's the Statu quo that is unnaceptable for the VAST majority of Quebecers, federalist or sovereignist, Ignatieff want to break that Statu quo, sorry but i gotta say congratulations to him (and it takes courages, to propose that in the Liberal party, the Trudeau party), and bullshit to all those Liberals members who are just scared of the outcome. They (ROC and Liberals mostly) would like this problem to fade away without making any change to the constitution, it won't, this was Trudeau thoughts, 25 years ago, and some Liberals members and most Canadians still think this way.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Also what are peoples take on the Conservatives decision to tax trust companies.....just another example of government, of any kind, lying through their teeth to get a vote.
On the Trust Company thing I don't have a problem. Their stance was given a certain business environment. The business environment changed and so did the policy. I see this more as good governance than any credibility issue.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
i will give harper credit for allowing this to goto a parliamentary committee although, not much will happen as we are gonna be in another election ...
i agree with the trust move however, i do think that if the liberals made the promise and backed out (like they usually do), that the cons would be all over it ...
Yes but don't forget that the Liberals can choose to vote against the NDP if Layton don't wait till they have a chief, Liberals + Conservatives = NDP lost. Again not convince with Layton political flair, even if i agree with his stance...
Agree about the Trust thing, i have no problem with it, it's just that they broke some kind of a promise (government promise), but i see no problem with this future policy.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Agree on both counts, except that we will only be in another election if indeed Harper decides to push the bill through unchanged, something he won' try to do ... Because the chance for success is nil.
Still lied and usually the current lie is what hold's prominent favour in the mind's of voters.....
Besides letting his MPs make ill-informed comments about our troops in Afghanistan, that is.
But yeah. This is a Layton move I support.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
this gov't is accomplishing nothing ... we all know that ... harper knows this ... right now - they are governing with a disdain ... especially as it relates to ontario ...
harper is carving out a plan to win a majority - he cannot do anything unless he gets it ... no one likes any of his bills ... they don't speak to all canadians ...
this lie is no different than the one's the liberals told ... ultimately, they are still governing to their base ... so, that won't change ... the question is whether or not the people who voted conservatives as a protest to liberal mismanagement go back ...
Most of your points are debatable. Less debatable is your first one about the current government "not doing much". I actually agree, the government is focusing largely on day-to-day running of the country, as opposed to working radical new policies into the Canadian fabric. In this, its not so different from the plethora of Liberal and Con governments we've seen since MacDonald.
If Harper had a majority, maybe things would be different. Like I said before, I'm fairly happy with the situation. The Liberals got the message they deserved to get, but Harper isn't in a position to do anything too drastic.
there is no way a vote of non-confidence would have passed ... layton knows that ... the liberals are leadership-less ... they would most likely abstain ... but what it would do is put out there even more how utterly disastrous this so called environmental plan is ... and the cons do not want to make it an election issue ... this is why they were able to win last election - the environment was not a topic and this is where they are weakest ...
so, whatever it takes to turn voters off the topic is in their best interests ... the liberals are useless until they elect a leader ...