Let the games begin

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


They're still fundamentally the same.

You might want to mention that to the millions of Canadians who used to vote Tory and who swallowed their bile and voted Liberal last time. The Tories were an electable party. The new Conservatives are not. They got 30% of the popular vote, and cannot win with less than 45% or so (the Liberals were able to pull off a of squeaker in the 90s with 41-42% or so, but the dynamics are different).

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhow, I'd laugh my ass off if the Conservatives manage to bring down the government on this. The voters would kick their ass.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uhmm. You are aware that the major gaffs in the last campaign came from candidates from Ontario and BC, aren't you?

To tell the honest truth I wasn't, since I was travelling in Slovakia during the campaign. My reference to 'Albertan rednecks' was meant to be amusing. Of course people from everywhere can be morons.

The difference between the Tories and the Liberals is that the media aren't on a witch hunt for Liberals during national campaigns. There is plenty of dirt in the Liberal house.

In Quebec this is absolutely right. The federalist press here is super pro-Red. However aren't the media held by CanWest more favorable to the Tories?

Also, you are aware that Day was a creature of Reform, and not a Tory, aren't you? Admittedly the parties did merge. However, the significant bit is that control of the party is done based on equality by riding. That means that the ridings in NS (or Montreal) with 100 members have as big a voice in the party as the ridings in Calgary with 1000 or 5000 members. In short, the Tories won by holding out til the Western Snit Fit parties said 'give' in the name of ending the rule of Liberals.

Of course I am aware of this. I was just pointing towards the strawmen that the Tories will have to get through. The fact remains though that the 'new' Tories are much more right-leaning than the Mulroney era ones. In a Mulroney-like government, abortion and DP would probably be non-issues.

I wouldn't call a bunch of closet seperatists middle of the road.

First, they weren't separatist before 1992, and second, my point still holds that politically they were center/center-right.

I think seperatism is a dead issue as long as nobody throws a grenade into the chicken coop. Ideas of national pride aside, nobody in Canada has economic reasons to leave at the moment.

Like an old saying, no fuel, no fire.

If the Bloc didn't exist that would be fine. However it does and in its current state it is making the country barely governable. You could wait for its slow death, but... as long as the country is ungovernable this will stir up ****, and **** is good for separatists in general.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's no way the Conservatives can get a majority government without a significant number of seats in Quebec, and no minority government will last for any amount of time with 3 parties to its left and none to its right.

Sure they will.

Plenty of people who would rather see a government not the current huddle on the disjointed left.

As for a majority without Quebec, it is possible. All the Conservatives would need to do is win 55 seats from Ontario and the Maritimes.

Granted, I would prefer them to win some seats there, but what would you consider a significant number?

[Kuciwalker]

What's a throne speech?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
In Quebec this is absolutely right. The federalist press here is super pro-Red. However aren't the media held by CanWest more favorable to the Tories?

More balanced, but still indulgent of the witch hunts.

Problem with the Conservatives is that the brush used to tar Reform/CA was still fresh enough to apply to them during the last campaign. Eventually things will settle and the whole country can get on with it.

Of course I am aware of this. I was just pointing towards the strawmen that the Tories will have to get through. The fact remains though that the 'new' Tories are much more right-leaning than the Mulroney era ones. In a Mulroney-like government, abortion and DP would probably be non-issues.

I agree the Tories are a ways away from being the party of Stanfield and Clark. It will take a bit, but the Reds will come back (I did). There is no other place from which to effect government in Canada in a positive (to them) fashion.

If abortion is such an issue for the Conservative party (they have brought no bills forward) why is it that the only people bringing abortion legislation to the House are Liberals?

The fact is that there are loons (to someone) in both parties.

If the Bloc didn't exist that would be fine. However it does and in its current state it is making the country barely governable. You could wait for its slow death, but... as long as the country is ungovernable this will stir up ****, and **** is good for separatists in general.

I agree. We are at the crossroads. Does Quebec continue to send strong contingents of seperatists to Parliament, allowing only MPs from a single other national party? Or do they return to the fold and elect a few Tories from time to time.

The Tories aren't gonna ever form a government without seats from Quebec. If by some slim chance they ever did that would be very good for speratism, I think.

In the absense of the Tories being able to form a government once in a while, there will be no end to Liberal governments. That in itself is eventually going to lead to levels of corruption that will also lend to support for seperatism.

I guess I'm supposing that federalists in Quebec have a choice to make. Ignore the Tories and leave the nation in the ever more corrupt grasp of the Liberals and thus play into the hands of the seperatists; ignore the desires of the ROC to change government when and if the ROC supports the Tories enough to force a slim majority over the lack of any MPs from Quebec and thus play into the hands of the seperatists; or bury the hatchet that is based on a man and a government that has been dead and buried politically for getting near twenty years and return to a party that offers the only real alternative to endless Liberal government.

I'm thinking that they will be able to rebuild in Quebec. There was a time when the thought of a Liberal in Alberta would have led people into hysterics of laughter. It still happened, because times changed, people changed, and the people of a couple of ridings in Edmonton decided that a couple Liberals from here abouts is a good idea.

I think, or hope, that the same thing can happen for the Tories in some parts of Montreal and around Ottawa.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Luckily not. There's no way the Conservatives can get a majority government without a significant number of seats in Quebec, and no minority government will last for any amount of time with 3 parties to its left and none to its right.

Right now the Conservatives are rightist, the Liberals centrist and the BQ and NDP leftist. Until the Conservatives do something about their extremist image (e.g. by becoming less extremist) they will never win seats in Quebec (nor, for that matter, in Eastern Ontario), and without these two regions they cannot govern the country. The problem won't arise, in other words.

Actually the bigger problem is the prospect of a single party governing for 20 or 30 or 40 years. I doubt Quebec would stick around through all the crap that would arise in that circumstance.

Hense the problem is that the Tories do need to gain seats in Quebec or the real problem festers.

I agree that the Tories have to moderate their image and they have a lot of hard work ahead to court the vote of centrists from Hamilton to St Johns, but I think they can do it.

Never is a very long time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's a throne speech?

Speech given by the Govenor General to both Houses of Parliament that outlines the intentions of the government in broad strokes for the session of Parliament that is just beginning.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure they will.

Plenty of people who would rather see a government not the current huddle on the disjointed left.

As for a majority without Quebec, it is possible. All the Conservatives would need to do is win 55 seats from Ontario and the Maritimes.

Granted, I would prefer them to win some seats there, but what would you consider a significant number?

It could happen, if the Liberals are in for long enough, but I don't think it would be a very good plan for the future of the country.

Put it this way, for Ontario to align with the West to put a majority in power with zero representation from Quebec, Ontario would just about be saying 'to hell with Quebec'. Of course, some would say that the people of Quebec would be saying 'to hell with Canada' at the same time, but the end result would most likely be the same. Another referendum.

[Ben Kenobi]

Very true.

However, the question was not, what is the best situation, but rather, what is possible.

And it is possible for the Tories to gain a majority without Quebec.

[notyoueither]

Duceppe has a liking for playing chicken. This could get really good.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/05/speech_opposition041005.html

Tory amendment could bring down Liberal government

Last Updated Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:01:12 EDT
OTTAWA - The Conservatives will present an amendment to Prime Minister Paul Martin's throne speech on Wednesday, saying party members likely won't approve the government's agenda without first making changes to it.

RELATED STORY: Throne speech lays out Liberal plan
Delivered by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, Tuesday's throne speech opened the new session of Parliament and laid out the Liberal agenda.

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton listen to the throne speech.

INDEPTH: Full text and video of the speech

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he'd meet with his caucus on Tuesday night and prepare the amendment to deliver to Martin's minority government.
While he wouldn't reveal what amendments his party – the official Opposition – would ask for, Harper did say that tax reduction and democratic reform were both missing from the throne speech.

"There really wasn't much there," he said of the speech. "This really is the vague Liberal program repeated."

Tory deputy leader Peter MacKay, who called the throne speech "vacuous and devoid of detail," said his party would like the Liberals to deliver an action plan on how they'll implement their future plans.

"It's difficult for the Conservative party to support this document how we see it," said MacKay.

INDEPTH: Canadian government

The Conservatives plan to amend the speech with priorities they believe are important to Canadians, said MacKay.

Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, whose party holds 54 seats in Parliament, didn't offer much support for the speech, saying he'd like to see it amended.

"If no change is made to it, the Bloc will vote against the throne speech" said Duceppe.

The opposition parties will vote on the speech later this month. Opposition parties traditionally vote against the speech, but losing the vote could bring down the Liberal minority government.

If they gained the support of the one independent MP, the Tories and BQ would have enough seats to vote down a Liberal-NDP bloc.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said he doesn't want another election and has no desire to bring down the government. He offered lukewarm support for Martin, saying the speech moved "in a good direction."

Layton said he was disheartened that the prime minister didn't provide specifics on child care and the gas tax, he was pleased about Martin's offer to look at electoral reform.

"We're not sure what it means, but it's welcome to hear those words," said Layton.

With its 19 seats, the NDP is seen as the most likely parliamentary partner for the Liberals.

However, Layton said he was disturbed that debt reduction was the most detailed aspect of the speech. The Liberals vowed to reduce debt-to-GDP radio to 25 per cent within 10 years.

"I think if you do the math, [it's] the most expensive item in the whole project, which gives you some sense of the priorities," said Layton.

"The words on the gas tax were even softer than we've heard in years, and so naturally, that gives us cause for concern."

Written by CBC News Online staff

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Anyhow, I'd laugh my ass off if the Conservatives manage to bring down the government on this. The voters would kick their ass.

It's the Tories' 'job' to oppose the government. If Martin can't win an election, and then can't secure the support of enough votes from other parties to be able to govern for more than 2 weeks, then whose ass deserves kicking?

Martin had a choice. Play nice with the Tories or play nice with the Bloc. Good on 'im that he wasn't stupid enough to cuddle up to the Bloc. His bad that he couldn't see his way clear to cooperating with the Tories. He could have backed them into a corner, but he decided to govern as if he held a majority. In short, his problem.

PS. The Tories likely get a shot at government if the throne speech goes down. Now, that would be bizarre.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Actually the bigger problem is the prospect of a single party governing for 20 or 30 or 40 years.

Then tell the Conservatives to become a centrist party. Oh wait, if they do that then a bunch of nutbars in the West will decide that they hate compromise and **** up everything.

[KrazyHorse]

It's the Tories' 'job' to oppose the government.

No doubt. But if the Liberals get to go back to the electorate and tell them that the Conservatives are forcing another election because they've decided to make their stand over a meaningless speech then the Liberals win and (probably) everybody else loses.

[KrazyHorse]

If the Conservatives get to bring down the government over an important issue on which their stance is popular then they've won the chess match. Otherwise the Grits have nowhere to go but up...