The Liberals, though definitely incapable of the evils a majority Tory government would implement, have proven themselves to be the party of apathy, inaction (environment), centrism (tax cuts), maintaining the status quo (doing relatively nothing to fix our ailing public health care system), and corruption (need I list examples?).

The Conservatives and the NDP share common ground on accountability and cleaning up government corruption; mandatory minimum sentences for the illegal possession of firearms; tax cuts for low-income earners; and lowering the voting age to 16.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Whoever is PM, the NDP should be pushing, hard, for a change to the electoral system.

---

quote:

---

10. Electoral Reform
i) A Conservative Government will consider changes to electoral systems, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, fixed election dates, and the use of referendums.
ii) In reviewing options for electoral reform, a Conservative Government will not endorse any new electoral system that will weaken the link between Members of Parliament and their constituents, that will create unmanageably large ridings, or that will strengthen the control of the party machinery over individual Members of Parliament. A national referendum will be held prior to implementing any electoral reform proposal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cratez05:
Consider the obvious: the Canadian political landscape is dominated by four arguably progressive political parties (Greens, NDP, Liberals, Bloc) and only one Consersative party. Anything the Conservatives tried to pass that was too right wing (privatizing the health care system, scrapping the national child care plan, or proposing more wasteful, expensive tax cuts) would likely die a quick legislative death.

The Liberals, though definitely incapable of the evils a majority Tory government would implement, have proven themselves to be the party of apathy, inaction (environment), centrism (tax cuts), maintaining the status quo (doing relatively nothing to fix our ailing public health care system), and corruption (need I list examples?).

The Conservatives and the NDP share common ground on accountability and cleaning up government corruption; mandatory minimum sentences for the illegal possession of firearms; tax cuts for low-income earners; and lowering the voting age to 16.

I'm sure that, with Liberal, Bloc, and (if they win a seat) Green backing, the NDP could also push for other progressive priorities. Anyone care to agree/disagree?

---

The child care program is dead under a Conservative government (any type).

The NDP will be powerless to push for anything. The Conservatives will not need their support, with the Bloc pledged to not bring down the government and the Liberals unwilling to while they replace Martin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
The child care program is dead under a Conservative government (any type).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

The child care program is dead under a Conservative government (any type).

The NDP will be powerless to push for anything. The Conservatives will not need their support, with the Bloc pledged to not bring down the government and the Liberals unwilling to while they replace Martin.

Electoral reform will NOT happen. Tax "reform" will.

---

I think all of this would be true if the Tories formed a majority government. However, you are forgetting that the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP (and Greens) ALL support a national child care program that is already underway and they would unequivocally vote against any legislation to scrap it.

Furthermore, no matter how much the Conservatives and NDP disagree with each other ideologically, no minority government can ignore a party that holds the balance of power, and the NDP would at least be able to push through the aforementioned priorities that they share with the Tories.

Finally, what about the gigantic elephant in the room? You know, that Liberal party that's been in power for the last 12 years and simply cannot fathom being an opposition party?

The Liberals, in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives for the next election, would make it VERY difficult for the Tories to pass anything that - at least in terms of optics - opposed traditional Canadian values (i.e. unfair taxation, privatizing health care).

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: cratez05 ]

That being said, one reform that the Conservatives have proposed (and that I agree with) is to drastically broaden the number of types of bills that a government can lose without having to dissolve parliament. They want a situation where the opposition could combine to defeat, for example, a tax increase on low income people, and the government goes on and goes back to the drawing board. They want it so that a minority government can only be forced out if there is a formal "vote of no confidece".

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

The child care program is dead under a Conservative government (any type).

...

Electoral reform will NOT happen. Tax "reform" will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cratez05:

I think all of this would be true if the Tories formed a majority government. However, you are forgetting that the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP (and Greens) ALL support a national child care program that is already underway and they would unequivocally vote against any legislation to scrap it.

Furthermore, no matter how much the Conservatives and NDP disagree with each other ideologically, no minority government can ignore a party that holds the balance of power, and the NDP would at least be able to push through the aforementioned priorities that they share with the Tories.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: cratez05 ]

---

As RB already said, there is nothing to "scrap". There is no child care legislation. It was a budget allocation. The Tories would simply not allocate any new money. There is nothing for the libs, ndp, bloq to vote against.

quote:

---

Originally posted by capebretoner:
In other words: ndp powerless in next parliament unless libs+ndp=155+.

---

Even then. With the Bloc pledged not to bring down the government, and the Cons almost certainly in a rebuilding phase, the Liberals could do whatever they want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Good.

---

The first point seem positive enough, they say they keep an "open mind" on every electoral system. I hear some say "yeah! we'll get PR".

However, direct your attention to the secon point:

quote:

---

ii) In reviewing options for electoral reform, a Conservative Government will not endorse any new electoral system that will weaken the link between Members of Parliament and their constituents, that will create unmanageably large ridings, or that will strengthen the control of the party machinery over individual Members of Parliament. A national referendum will be held prior to implementing any electoral reform proposal.

---

So first, any list system is right out. STV (or PR-STV for those who confuse it with AV) is also eliminated as a possible system since it would require large ridings to be really proportional. MMP is also very unlikely since there is a class of MPs that have limited links to their constituents and are MPs of large regions too. Any attempt to use lists in MMP to increase women's and minorities' representation (personally I disagree, I'm for equality, not parity) is giving more power to the party over MPs and that way is also closed.

In short, the Conservatives don't leave much in the way of possible proportional systems that could be implemented. If they are like a Conservative I've discussed with on another forum, the only alternative system they'd accept would be Alternative Vote like in Australia (if you prefer, 1-member-per-riding STV), not a proportional system at all that would probably make it even harder for smaller parties to gain seats.

And the referendum clause is also a convenient way to stop such reform by demanding undemocratic goals like 60% or other such demands.

Let's face it - none of us has any influence on the national outcome, only on their own actions. When you look at it that way, there is no point in expending negative energy worrying about something that you can have no effect on. If Stephen Harper is PM - I'll deal with it. If Paul Martin is PM - I'll deal with it. If the NDP loses all their seats to the Christian Heritage Party - I'll deal with it.

Ultimately, our job is to work within whichever parameters the voters choose.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scott:
The idea that the best way forward for the NDP is by way of a Conservative minority reminds me of the German Communist position in the 1930s - "first the Nazis then us". A few years later when they were cooling thier heels in camps I am sure that it didn't seem like such a good idea.

---

Five minutes in the penalty box for unnecessary godwinning.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
No need to worry, SLB. Christian Heritage isn't contesting all the NDP's seats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cratez05:
Consider the obvious: the Canadian political landscape is dominated by four arguably progressive political parties (Greens, NDP, Liberals, Bloc) and only one Consersative party. Anything the Conservatives tried to pass that was too right wing (privatizing the health care system, scrapping the national child care plan, or proposing more wasteful, expensive tax cuts) would likely die a quick legislative death.

The Liberals, though definitely incapable of the evils a majority Tory government would implement, have proven themselves to be the party of apathy, inaction (environment), centrism (tax cuts), maintaining the status quo (doing relatively nothing to fix our ailing public health care system), and corruption (need I list examples?).

The Conservatives and the NDP share common ground on accountability and cleaning up government corruption; mandatory minimum sentences for the illegal possession of firearms; tax cuts for low-income earners; and lowering the voting age to 16.

I'm sure that, with Liberal, Bloc, and (if they win a seat) Green backing, the NDP could also push for other progressive priorities. Anyone care to agree/disagree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capebretoner:

As RB already said, there is nothing to "scrap". There is no child care legislation. It was a budget allocation. The Tories would simply not allocate any new money. There is nothing for the libs, ndp, bloq to vote against.

---

His next trick will be to predict the 2009 Stanley Cup Champion and the 2017 winner of the Oscar for Best Picture.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]

quote:

---

Once again ladies and gentleman give it up for the Amazing Kreskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Once again ladies and gentleman give it up for the Amazing Kreskin.

His next trick will be to predict the 2009 Stanley Cup Champion and the 2017 winner of the Oscar for Best Picture.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]

---

Not only are you an asshole, but you're an idiot.

There isn't a possible outcome of this election that works for the NDP, because NO ONE NEEDS THEIR SUPPORT.

"Oh the NDP of course, but I am voting LIEberal because the CPC scares me...".

Ahh geee, wouldn't you know it, there appearsto be campaign especially for NDPers, because it happens every election. The Conservatives are scarey, you should vote LIEberal.

I don't suppose anyone noticed that the LIEberals have adopted many Conservative policies over the years? NAFTA, GST to name two that they promised to revisit (gee 12 yrs later and nadda). It goes on and on.

Voting against a party is bloody useless... And as long as it happens, we will NEVER see an NDP in the PMO.

I sincerely hope for a CPC minority with the NDP forming the Official Opposition. Should that ever happen more Canadians will get a chaance to see the NDP in action, and could actually give the NDP a chance at the PMO in the following election. If the NDP party members continue to vote LIEberal for fear of the CPC, the the NDP do not deserve to hold government in neither minority or majority.

I am voting for the CPC, because I agee with the majority of thier policies. I hope for the NDP to form the official opposition, as the NDP will balance out the policies I feel need change in the CPC (like social spending, SSM, and I want the NDP to hold the CPC to electoral reform).

If we are going to see electoral reform, it will be on a CPC/NDP watch or vis versa. It will not happen on a LIEberal watch as their only interest is LIEberal interests as they have proven time and again for the majority of the last century that they held power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:

The cons and NDP do not agree on lowering taxes for the poor the cons want to raise taxes on the poor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Not only are you an asshole, but you're an idiot.

There isn't a possible outcome of this election that works for the NDP, because NO ONE NEEDS THEIR SUPPORT.

Attacking me won't make that untrue. It will, however, confirm what an incredible moron you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
How can you vote for a party against basic rights for everyone?

---

Trott out the old liberal crap again eh? It's simple, as a member of the CF, I see the current NDP foreign policy as being potentially deadly to me (linking all future deployments to the UN), the Liberal and CPC policies are one and the same (Liberal lies aside). The impact on life and personal well being are at hand for me. Until the NDP adjusts foreign policy to something that does not increase my chances of getting killed for nothing, then I will continue to vote CPC.

The party is maturing WRT SSM (which is by the by the only thing you could quibble the rights issue on). It's not too terribly long ago that none of the parties were agreeable to SSM. Given time, all things mature...

quote:

---

It's simple, as a member of the CF, I see the current NDP foreign policy as being potentially deadly to me (linking all future deployments to the UN), the Liberal and CPC policies are one and the same (Liberal lies aside). The impact on life and personal well being are at hand for me. Until the NDP adjusts foreign policy to something that does not increase my chances of getting killed for nothing, then I will continue to vote CPC.

---

What the hell are you talking about? Linking military intervention to the UN is a great way of avoiding very dangerous missions as the UN only allowed once an invasion (Korea), whereas it made peacekeeping missions a lot. Peacekeeping missions may be frustrating in many cases and sometimes dangerous, but never as dangerous as the interventions that happen outside of the UN cadre where the intervening armed forces are a legitimate target for the people living there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:

What the hell are you talking about? Linking military intervention to the UN is a great way of avoiding very dangerous missions as the UN only allowed once an invasion (Korea), whereas it made peacekeeping missions a lot. Peacekeeping missions may be frustrating in many cases and sometimes dangerous, but never as dangerous as the interventions that happen outside of the UN cadre where the intervening armed forces are a legitimate target for the people living there.

Try and tell me with a straight face that you'd find less dangerous going to serve in Iraq than in Kosovo. But missions more like Iraq is what you vote for when you vote Conservative.

---

The UN is a flawed and fucked up organisation. Having born personal witness to the incompetance of UN Peacekeeping, I would say I know what I am talking about. The UN LET 800,000 PEOPLE DIE IN RAWANDA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

The UN is a flawed and fucked up organisation. Having born personal witness to the incompetance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caliope:

So let’s base our foreign policy on the well-organized and competent US government? I don’t think you’ll even find a moajority of Americans who agree with that today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
Linking military intervention to the UN is a great way of avoiding very dangerous missions as the UN only allowed once an invasion (Korea) . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:

Interesting thing about that. After WWII the Soviets sort of sponsored North Korea, as the Americans did South Korea. However, the Soviets were as blind-sided by the North Korean invasion of South Korea as everyone else. I guess that's why the Russians didn't veto that UN action.

---

Quoth Wikipedia:

Terrible because Harper would use his first year to appear to be all sweetness and reason, handing out money right and left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
A minority Conservative government would not be as disastrous as a majority Conservative government, but it would be terrible for Canada.

Terrible because Harper would use his first year to appear to be all sweetness and reason, handing out money right and left.

Then, he would call an election when it suits him, and using his new, moderate image, return to majority government with a vengeance.

---

A quick glance at Canada's federal electoral history shows how the Liberals have remained Canada's natural governing party.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]

The NDP also gained ground in 1988 after Mulroney's first term.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
About the Conservative policy on electoral reform: any list system is right out. PR-STV is also eliminated as a possible system since it would require large ridings to be really proportional. MMP is also very unlikely since there is a class of MPs that have limited links to their constituents and are MPs of large regions too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
Any attempt to use lists in MMP to increase women's and minorities' representation (personally I disagree, I'm for equality, not parity) is giving more power to the party over MPs and that way is also closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
If they are like a Conservative I've discussed with on another forum, the only alternative system they'd accept would be Alternative Vote like in Australia, not a proportional system at all that would probably make it even harder for smaller parties to gain seats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
And the referendum clause is also a convenient way to stop such reform by demanding undemocratic goals like 60% or other such demands.

---

quote:

---

The BC Citizens’ Assembly produced a proposal for electoral reform that — setting aside any consideration of the proposal’s specific merits — was supported by 57% of participating voters in a province-wide referendum, and by majorities in all but two of the province’s 79 electoral districts. This is a greater level of popular support than has been achieved by any previous electoral reform proposal at the federal or provincial level, of which we are aware.

Part of the reason for the popular success of the electoral model proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly is that it had been designed by a representative, randomly-selected group which nobody could accuse of being motivated by partisanship, a desire to protect any specific special interest or group of special interests, or by pressure to achieve elite accommodation at the expense of the general good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
There has been some speculation about the Liberals holding on to power even if the Tories got more seats in a minority situation. I think this could happen in a CPC 115/Libs 110/ BQ 60/NDP 30 type of scenario. But i think that if the Conservatives had a really clear advantage over the Liberals (ie: 135 to 95) Martin would really have no choice but to resign.

---

Would the Bloc vote him straight out, the day the House opens? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Conservatives are taking votes from the Bloc. Do they want to risk another "beau risque" phenomenon? Doubtful. What do you think, Simon?

But if Martin does resign, just remember Jack Layton's line: Stephen Harper's platform looks a lot like Paul Martin's record.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Really, please feel free to post a link to the policy that shows this little peice of fiction.

---

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/06/taxes-tory060122.html

Hows that?

Not only do they want to raise taxes for the working poor but they also want to lower the basic exemption.

All signs are for the cons to make their distain for the poor even more than they do now (if that is possible).

I have always had a very very low opinion of the conservatives (not as low as my opinion of the Liberals) but this craven move to increase taxes on the poor surprised even me.

edited to add 2 words.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: davidt ]

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: davidt ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:
The cons have two choices fantasticaly outspend both the NDP and the Liberals or keep this policy and fund the promises they make off the minimum wage earners of this country.

All signs are for the cons to make their distain for the poor even more than they do now (if that is possible).

I have always had a very very low opinion of the conservatives (not as low as my opinion of the Liberals) but this craven move to increase taxes on the poor surprised even me.

edited to add 2 words.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: davidt ]

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: davidt ]

---

Cleraly you choose to ignore the parts about lowering overall taxes, and dropping 2% from the GST.

Secondly you ignore the fact that they are not raising taxes, but rather turning back the 1% reduction that the Liberals have recently offered, and is not even law yet. Second to this point, the cons have said that the reduction would hold for this year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
The only good thing that would come of a Con Minority would be a total disintegration of the Liberal party - it could happen, but it seems unlikely right now. If we had a second election while they were in a leadership review, or if they picked a leader that was a total moron, it might happen. Otherwise, a Con government would be a placeholder while the Libs revitalized, then took over again for another decade or two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Cleraly you choose to ignore the parts about lowering overall taxes, and dropping 2% from the GST.

Secondly you ignore the fact that they are not raising taxes, but rather turning back the 1% reduction that the Liberals have recently offered, and is not even law yet. Second to this point, the cons have said that the reduction would hold for this year.

Please, feel free to read the post which you linked.

---

What a deprssing series of weak and transparent excuses.

The fact is the working poor will pay less in taxes this year than next year if the poor hating cons get in.

quote:

---

Now, however, a policy spokesman with the Conservative campaign called back to say the party will be keeping the reduction only for the 2005 tax year should they assume office. We take him at his word on this. But it should also prove very interesting to see the first Stephen Harper budget attempt to raise the rate for the lowest income tax bracket back up to 16 from 15 per cent, and also lower the basic personal exemption at the same time.

---

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/spendingtallies.html

The fact is the only party that has any plans to raise taxes is the conservative party and the only group the conservatives want to raise taxes on is the orking poor.
A repulsive position even for a conservative.

The most disgusting argument I have heard from harper on the subject is his claim that increased charity will be better for the working class rather than letting them keep the current rates of taxation on their meager earnings.

Harper flat out defends the need to lower business taxes at the expense of the poorest canadians.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/TopPhoto/2006/01/07/1383329-cp.html

These tagetings of the weakest groups in Canada are what a person supports when they vote conservative. The Cons play the politics of division and this is just the latest example of a con policy that victimizes a group they view as weak and worthy of scorn.

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:

The most disgusting argument I have heard from harper on the subject is his claim that increased charity will be better for the working class rather than letting them keep the current rates of taxation on their meager earnings.

---

If true -- a page right out of the Bush administration's play book. Reduce government, increase "the armies of compassion".

One of many problems -- Canadians are not as prone to donate to charity as Americans. Largely this is explained by noting that Canadians pay a higher wage in taxes than do Americans and so expect the government to look after social safety net items.

Until Canadians learn to contribute like Americans (so that little Stevie's ideology can be successful) -- could be a little tough on the working poor.

I read also that Stevie would reduce capital gains taxes for those who contribute stocks and bonds to charitable organizations. That one is just odd:

quote:

---

Harper said the Conservatives would remove the capital gains tax on listed stock donations to charity if they were elected Jan. 23. The measure should make it easier for people to support the charities of their choice, he said.

---

How much money is given to charities via stock donations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/spendingtallies.html

The fact is the only party that has any plans to raise taxes is the conservative party and the only group the conservatives want to raise taxes on is the orking poor.
A repulsive position even for a conservative.

The most disgusting argument I have heard from harper on the subject is his claim that increased charity will be better for the working class rather than letting them keep the current rates of taxation on their meager earnings.

Harper flat out defends the need to lower business taxes at the expense of the poorest canadians.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/TopPhoto/2006/01/07/1383329-cp.html

These tagetings of the weakest groups in Canada are what a person supports when they vote conservative. The Cons play the politics of division and this is just the latest example of a con policy that victimizes a group they view as weak and worthy of scorn.

The cons have to pay for a GST cut on BMWs and tax cuts for business and the billions of dollars this costs has to come from somewhere and the cons are going to get this money by raising taxes on the working poor.

---

quote:

---

Open-list MMP with, as recommended by the Law Commission, 2/3 local MPs and 1/3 regional list MPs will not weaken the link between Members of Parliament and their constituents if the regions are small, making regional open-list MPs locally accountable. The local ridings would be 50% larger than today: unmanageably large?

---

And what about the links between the regional MPs and their constituents? They'd represent regions of, what, about 10 present ridings? Don't worry, the Conservatives will not miss that and they will point it out as clearly as I do here. Plus MMP creates two classes of MPs, they may not have opposed it in their policy, but I'm pretty sure it'd pop up there if the issue came to be debated more by them.

quote:

---

Open lists will not strengthen the control of the party machinery over individual Members of Parliament, when the regions are small so that the regional list members are nominated by party members in the region, not part of a centrally-drawn-up list. In short, the current Quebec model, but with open lists, and with 33% regional MPs rather than 40%, would meet the Conservative criteria. In fact, nothing in the Conservative criteria rules out province-wide proportionality (German-style linked regions.)

---

I've spoken with a Conservative on open lists, he still said it was giving more power to the party. Don't ask me why, Conservative thinking makes my engineer's brain hurt. Believe me, any mention of list, open or closed, will be opposed by them, they see them as party lists imposed by the party. I know that you can argue that the candidates are also chosen by the party, but logic isn't a very Conservative trait.

Fact is, as it is, the Conservatives claim being open to electoral reform, but all their conditions eliminate quickly all proportional systems. Apparently, for them, the only thing they see as a problem in the present system is that some candidates are elected with less than a majority of the vote in their ridings.

quote:

---

Would the Bloc vote him straight out, the day the House opens? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Conservatives are taking votes from the Bloc. Do they want to risk another "beau risque" phenomenon? Doubtful. What do you think, Simon?

---

If the Bloc thinks like the members I talked to, they hope to exploit the Conservatives' "decentralization" tendencies whilst keeping their right-wing agenda down in a minority government. I think the Bloc will try to do so, letting the Conservatives court their votes with tax transfer schemes, and voting down any legislation considered right-wing. The Bloc doesn't fear the Conservatives, and the polls I've seen are unclear on the origins of the new Conservative voters, I've seen polls, notably from SC, indicating for example a +7 boost for the Cons, but at the same time the Bloc gaining 1 point and the Libs losing 6 points.

quote:

---

Would lower income earners not benefit more from a 2% cut to the GST than a 1% cut on 4000$ of their income (that's about 40 dollars a year).

---

Estimating the impacts of a GST tax cut is hard. First, essential products (which should form most of the spending of low-income earners) are mostly not taxed. Second, the most GST they can pay is based on how much money after tax they pay (if they are taxed about 25% of their salaries, that mean that at most, it can be a tax reduction of 1,5% of their salaries). Third, there's the GST tax rebate that makes the situation even more confused, if you reduce the GST tax rebate at the same time as you reduce the GST, it may change nothing for the poorest. So I don't know which approach gives the most to low-income families for every buck spent on that reduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
any mention of list, open or closed, will be opposed by them, they see them as party lists imposed by the party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I'm sure taking out the desks in the Commons would give us extra room, but I don't know how much extra.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Getting rid of the Senate would mean we could easily afford 154 extra MPs to keep the ridings as they are, and add the MMP component.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

A very tempting thought, and it would be an excellent solution, but -- it will have to wait for a constitutional amendment, whereas we can introduce PR with no constitutional amendment needed.

---

This is true - and that is the sticking point. A final, as much as anything in Federal Politics can be final, resolution to the Houses of Parliament would have to include the future of the Senate, and the electoral system. Getting that amendment would certainly be difficult.

By "comfortable" I am referring to the fact that re-electing the Liberals would be a mockery of our supposedly democratic system. This is a party that has governed for 12 years and, dare I say, done quite well in terms of the economy, moderate social spending, and maintaing Canada's role as a peacekeeping nation.

But they've ultimately become mired in corruption and arrogance, as evidenced by the sponsorship scandal, Mike Klander's resignation, the Goodale inquiry, and Martin's assertion that this election is strictly between two parties (Libs and Cons).

As a union member and occasional campaigner for the NDP, I am well aware of Harper's NCC roots and neocon agenda. He is, without doubt, a wolf in sheep's clothing. And obviously, it would be preferable if Canadians saw this election as being between the Liberals and the NDP (with the Conservatives in third place). But they don't.

With that said, the Canadian electorate has yet to see what a Conservative minority government would do in a position of power in a Parliament with a stronger (maybe 20-30 seats) NDP presence. If the Cons were serious about hanging onto (minority) power, they would cooperate with opposition parties. If not, I'm sure Canadians would happily kick them out and re-elect the "natural governing party of Canada."

I guess my question is - and I know that it could potentially entail disaster - why not try this proposed situation out?

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: cratez05 ]

quote:

---

I guess my question is - and I know that it could potentially entail disaster - why not try this proposed situation out?

---

Because it potentially entails DISASTER!

It's true that the Liberals in power are corrupt. But the Tories in power in Ottawa were corrupt, and the Ontario Mike Harris Reformatories were corrupt.

there is nothing to distinguish the Liberals and the Conservatives on this point, except that the Conservatives don't have their hands on the levers of power to enact their drama upon us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cratez05:
why not try this proposed situation out?

---

One can debate whether this was good long-term strategy for the NDP. If the NDP has known the Accord was going to make Peterson look so good he would win easily in 1987, maybe the NDP would have insisted on cabinet seats.

The point is, that's the process. The NDP's bargaining power was increased by having a second bidder. And it made no difference which of the two had the most seats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
there is nothing to distinguish the Liberals and the Conservatives on this point, except that the Conservatives don't have their hands on the levers of power to enact their drama upon us. But they hate government. They want power only to pass money and favours on to their friends.

---

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Because it potentially entails DISASTER!

It's true that the Liberals in power are corrupt. But the Tories in power in Ottawa were corrupt, and the Ontario Mike Harris Reformatories were corrupt.

there is nothing to distinguish the Liberals and the Conservatives on this point, except that the Conservatives don't have their hands on the levers of power to enact their drama upon us.

But they hate government. They want power only to pass money and favours on to their friends.

---

It is because of this thinking that many NDPers will vote LIEberal. It is because of this that the NDP does not deserve to be a party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Because it potentially entails DISASTER!

It's true that the Liberals in power are corrupt. But the Tories in power in Ottawa were corrupt, and the Ontario Mike Harris Reformatories were corrupt.

there is nothing to distinguish the Liberals and the Conservatives on this point, except that the Conservatives don't have their hands on the levers of power to enact their drama upon us.

But they hate government. They want power only to pass money and favours on to their friends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cratez05:

Fair enough. If the Tories are indeed a corrupt extension of corporate Canada, let them expose themselves as being such. In the broader scheme of things, it will take Canadians trying out different governments before the NDP can ever become a serious contender for governing Canada (they are policy-wise, but the numbers currently aren't there).

---

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Thrasymachus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Reason, why are you ok with voting for the CPC that wants to take away rights from others?

---

quote:

---

The idea that the best way forward for the NDP is by way of a Conservative minority reminds me of the German Communist position in the 1930s - "first the Nazis then us". A few years later when they were cooling thier heels in camps I am sure that it didn't seem like such a good idea.

---

If the NDP keeps the minority Conservatives in check, the Conservatives will survive to the following election with a favourable track record. Then they'll get a majority with possible expansion in Quebec, then watch out - it's the Reform platform.

quote:

---

History has shown that minority governments turn into majority governments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
154 extra MPs to keep the ridings as they are, and add the MMP component.

---

Harper has just told Canadian Press "We also feel that it is unfair that Canada's electoral system causes rapidly growing provinces like British Columbia to send fewer MPs to the House of Commons than is warranted by their populations and we would therefore seek to correct this problem while ensuring that no province sees its number of MPs decline."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

As I implied in my first post, we are genuinely doomed if the Conservatives form a majority. For a rough idea of what this type of government would implement, go here:

http://cupe.ca/www/electionupdates/The_Conservatives_St

and here: