The Galloping Beaver
You're right about number 3. I will add, "Je pense que la majorit
é des Québécois a voté pour les Bloquistes ou les Péquistes une fois." I don't know how good or bad my French is or if I had to use the subjunctive mood. Note that my French is supposed to be standard Parisian French. The plural of Qu
ébécois is only masculine. Basically, when we ridicule the so-called separatists, we ridicule Quebeckers who are also Canadians.
For point number 7, each MP gets one vote in the House of Commons. If the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc agree on different bills, then a majority of the MPs will be in favour.
Just to add some comments...
For #2 I'd add that elected politicians are not "backroom operators".
For #9. I'd that they seem to be working on a coalition in plain sight, and will present it in Parliament if they go forward.
For #11. , where do I start? The Cons planned handling of the economy is a confusing mess: Harper/Flaherty claim no one saw this economic mess coming... and claim they've had a plan in place for over a year... promise they won't run a deficit, then say we'll need to run a deficit, and then promise not to... say they have a plan, but won't know what it is until after Obama is in... which Harper will respond to in the Spring budget... er... January budget...
And on it goes.
For 12 and 13, keep this very much in mind: There are three subsidy systems in place. There's the newer per-vote system, and two older ones: Riding associations get reimbursements of expenses if they get over a certain level of support, and that's paid for with public money; and, the one the Conservatives really leverage is the political donation tax credit, which the Cons milk the public for about $10 million/year -- more than any other political party. Actually, its more than all the others combined.
I also reject the premise that our electoral system is based upon electing a government, or a PM. It isn't. We vote for local reps, who decide (beforehand or afterwards), who does what. There's nothing in our constitution I've ever seen requiring political parties to be present, or candidates for PM to be announced before a general election.
Excellent rebuttals on all points. Maybe expand to "fuzzy blue sweater vest".
Point 13 is kinda about the $1.95 "subsidy". How about this:
The government took $1.95 of your money and gave it to the political party you voted for. Less than $1.95 actually, since they used some money from the taxpayers that couldn't be bothered to vote.
What Mark said.
This unknown writer is stating that the Conservatives will lose the most money of all in scrapping this funding. While true, they hardly need it this time around, since they have barrels of money.
About 75% of those barrels are a government subsidy based on the tax credit Mark speaks about. Getting rid of this would save a lot more money...and cripple the Conservatives.
Anyone that thinks this is about saving money is a fool, a Conservative tool or both.
Listening to some morning commentary and a lot of the corus radio stations seem to have taken word for word from the conservative mailout and from the 14 points you have listed!
Eerily similiar!
Best response to the ConSpin I have seen thus far, the suggestion that this action is somehow undomocratic coming from this lot is ludicrous. It is indeed yet annother example of the Republican tactic of accusing your opponent of precisely the thing that the con's have been activly doing for two or more years, Attacking our democratic processes!
One final thing: #14
The unknown scribe clearly doesn't know anything about the Canadian electoral process either: We don't vote for or against the Prime Minister. We vote for or against a party.
Canadians mostly voted against Harper's party.
I'm glad to see that the Liberals and NDP found the spine to kick Harper's big blue balls. I was worried that we were in for another year of absentions while they found a new leader.
The very best political theatre would happen if Harper decided to offer the Libs a power-sharing agreement. But while he has big blue balls, they're not big enough to allow him to speak the word "compromise."
Here's to the coming democratic revolution!
Noni said:
"In the United States, "socialist" is a dirty word. In Canada, it's a way of life."
>snort!<
Try saying that _after_ you identify yourself as one.
We've got a fine tradition of red-baiting here that's lasted right up until today.
Todd, you're right I suppose, but the actual beliefs as to reasonable social priorities and things like Crown Corporations and rights and liberties are dramatically to the left of the US. I have lived in both countries and there's no comparison.
Noni
Commenting by HaloScan
