CanPol - The Sad Story of Stephane Dion

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This goes in some sort of subforum I should think.

Did the title make it unclear what the topic was?

Troll.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Who do you vote for, Asher? It seems like you'd support the Conservatives, except they have that whole anti-gay marriage thing.

I don't vote. The last time I tried it was a major ordeal and they accused me of trying to vote twice due to their ****up.

Plus, they all suck equally in various ways.

[notyoueither]

Time in the wilderness is exactly what the Liberal Party of Canada needs. Dion may have been the best leader they could have picked.

[Wezil]

Bloc likely to reject throne speech, increasing possibility of election

By Isabelle Rodrigue, THE CANADIAN PRESS





OTTAWA - The Bloc Quebecois appears poised to vote against the throne speech, increasing the possibility of a general election this fall.

In a speech obtained by The Canadian Press and to be delivered to Bloc members on Saturday, Leader Gilles Duceppe outlines five conditions the Conservative government will find almost impossible to accept.

And Duceppe reiterates several times in the speech he is ready to adopt a hardline position that could send Canadians to the polls before the holidays.

Since the Bloc's crushing defeat by the Conservatives in a byelection in the staunchly sovereigntist Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region last Monday, party insiders have been saying the Bloc needs to reinforce the traditional view that it is best placed to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

"For Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who have so far survived with half-truths and half-met promises, the next throne speech will be a real test," Duceppe says in notes for his speech, which will be delivered in Rimouski, Que.

"Quebecers will see whether the openness of the Conservatives is real or just a facade."

The Bloc's five conditions for supporting the throne speech are major with the party calling for:

- The elimination of all federal spending powers in provincial jurisdictions.

- The Conservative government to respect the Kyoto Protocol.

-The continuation of supply management in the agriculture sector.

-Promises from the Tories to help Quebec's battered forestry industry.

-And a clear commitment from the government that Canadian soldiers will leave Afghanistan when the current mission ends in February 2009.

Duceppe's conditions indicate the Bloc has decided it no longer wants to be seen as an ally of the government on critical issues. Since the Tories were elected in January 2006, the Bloc has helped them survive three confidence votes, including two on federal budgets.

The House of Commons resumes sitting Oct. 16 and the pressure will be on the Liberals or the NDP to support the Conservatives if they don't want the government to lose the vote on the throne speech.

But neither party may want to back it.

The NDP has been demanding the immediate withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan, a position Harper has dismissed as unrealistic.

The Liberals, meanwhile, have asked that the troops leave Afghanistan in February 2009. They also want Bill C-30 on air quality to be reintroduced in the Commons as amended by the opposition parties.

The government has said C-30 will not be revived.

Several Liberals have also said it is highly improbable that the party will support the throne speech.

The opposition parties could amend the speech in order to avoid an election but that scenario remains hypothetical and nothing indicates there would be consensus among them.

The current standings in the 308-seat Commons are: Conservatives, 126; Liberals, 96; Bloc, 49, NDP, 30; three Independents; and four vacant.

[Kuciwalker]

Explain this "throne speech" to me.

[Wezil]

I would be glad to.

Basically, it is the Government (Conservatives) informing the Governor General (Queen's Rep) what they plan to do in this "session" of parliament.

The elected members of the House of Commons will then vote up or down on the proposal (as a package) with the fate of the government in the balance (probably - there is the bit about amending if you really want to go there - not a likely scenario).

As the Conservatives are a minority they will need the support of at least one other party to survive and all the likely suitors are painting themselves into corners.

[Kuciwalker]

Thanks

[Wezil]

Np. Our freakshow should be seen and understood(?) by all.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
I would be glad to.

Basically, it is the Government (Conservatives) informing the Governor General (Queen's Rep) what they plan to do in this "session" of parliament.

The elected members of the House of Commons will then vote up or down on the proposal (as a package) with the fate of the government in the balance (probably - there is the bit about amending if you really want to go there - not a likely scenario).

As the Conservatives are a minority they will need the support of at least one other party to survive and all the likely suitors are painting themselves into corners.

If the oppo amend the throne speech, the government should feel free to ask the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Totally bogus spin to cover a non-confidence vote.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


If the oppo amend the throne speech, the government should feel free to ask the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Totally bogus spin to cover a non-confidence vote.

I agree.

I find it much more likely that someone blinks before the vote. Remains to be seen who that might be.

[Ben Kenobi]

Same here. It's ridiculous that they could amend the throne speech! I'm tired of all the posturing. The four parties really don't like each other, but no one wants an election. They should just sit down and vote together against the conservatives, or let them govern.

The liberals voted for staying in Iraq, the BQ for the budget, it really doesn't matter who ends up with the Conservatives, when no one really wants to face the wrath of the electorate, including the conservatives.

[Seeker]

Why does the NDP want us out of Afghanistan?

I don't agree with Iraq, thinking it was stupid, immoral, and possibly illegal under international law, but Afghanistan was a clear case for war if I ever saw it.

This is not the time to abandon afghanistan.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why does the NDP want us out of Afghanistan?

They claim to want more recontruction - less war.

I rarely agree with the NDP. Even in this case. I too want Canada out of Afg- but for different reasons.

I don't agree with Iraq, thinking it was stupid, immoral, and possibly illegal under international law, but Afghanistan was a clear case for war if I ever saw it.

This is not the time to abandon afghanistan.

Many think the point of the mission has been lost. Did you hear ANYONE in authority using the "bringing freedom and western values" excuse pre-invasion? That is how they are trying to sell it now.

It is a terribly unpopular policy in areas where the Tories hope to gain political ground, and equally popular amongst their base. Tough issue for them.

The NDP are at least consistant. They have yet to see a military mission they like.

The Libs have flipped on the issue, but credibility was never their strong suit anyway.

The Bloc is opposed b/c it is what their base prefers.

[Kuciwalker]

The point of the mission was to pwn the Taliban and eliminate Afghanistan as a harbour for AQ. Until we can be sure it'll stay that way when we leave, we should stay.

[Wezil]

I'm torn between my desire to respond to that and my need to go do some grocery shopping.

Decisions, decisions....