 |
| |
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Kevin Brennan:
What a difference a few seats makes.
Last night, I said the evening was a major victory for Layton, and would have called it a blow for Harper. Layton looked set to hold the balance of power in Parliament, with the NDP safely having enough seats to pass legislation with the Liberals. An informal Liberal-NDP coalition seemed inevitable, although I still doubted that a formal one was plausible.
But the votes kept rolling in, and the final results look quite a bit different. Barring recounts, the Liberals and NDP are one seat short of having a working majority. That one seat means that the Liberals will need the support of more than the NDP to pass legislation, and places Martin's minority government in a far more precarious position.
The Liberals will have to find support from other parties to get to the magic number of 155 votes in Parliament, which means turning to the Conservatives, the Bloc, or the newly-powerful Chuck Cadman party. As the only independent, Cadman potentially wields as much power in the House as any party leader. I bet he's had some pretty friendly phone calls in the last few hours.
Who will become Speaker in the next Parliament? After all, the Speaker doesn't traditionally vote, removing one member from the pool. The Liberals and NDP can't afford to give up anyone, but will any Conservative MP be willing to do Martin that big a favour? I can see the Bloc potentially doing so, but I think the idea of a Bloc Speaker would be too much for Canadians to accept. Again, there may be a place here for Mr. Cadman.
The Liberals are now going to be forced to govern by putting together an ad-hoc coalition, vote by vote. They may try to pick off individual MPs, or cut deals with the other parties, but we're going to see a lot of horse-trading and, probably, ultimately not much done. This is likely to be a care-taker government that will last until someone's ready to go back to the polls. And it could be any party--the Liberals don't have the strength to be sure that they can pick a time of their choosing.
A working coalition with the NDP could have been a good thing for Martin. It would have forced him to be more activist, passing legislation that would enable him to re-invent himself as a social reformer and actually have something to run on in the next election. Now, though, he doesn't have as straightforward an option. I think Martin will clearly swing left, trying to get the support of enough Bloc members for legislation to push him over the top. Expect him to steal a fair-sized chunk of the NDP platform. I'm prepared to bet that one of the first acts of the new Liberal government will be legislation on same-sex marriage.
Potentially, the big winner in all of this, as I suggested a few days ago, may be Stephen Harper. He's done well enough, with 99 seats, that he's unlikely to face trouble within the party, and this defeat may give him the ammunition he needs to deal with the social conservatives. They may not have cost him the election (a Conservative majority was always unlikely) but they did hand Martin a strong minority. Harper now has the luxury of being solidly in opposition. His performance on the campaign trail was solid enough to make it clear that he can be effective in that role. While Martin has to struggle with the practicalities of running a deeply divided Parliament, Harper can simply go on the attack.
In the next election, Harper won't be a largely unknown figure leading a party only a few months old. He and the Conservatives will be familiar to Canadians, and people are far more likely to have a sense of what he stands for. If he has the strength and determination to bring the more unruly members of his caucus to heel, the results of the next election may be very different from this one.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
A few random points
1. Nobody will want to be perceived as the party that brought down the government for a while anyways. There could be a major backlash if there is no reason or issue to think the results would change a lot.
2. The Liberals should be able to limp along for a while cobbling together support on an issue by issue basis.
3. The Liberals could confound pundits by seeking support from the right but it is more likely they will shift left and garner support form the NDP usually and the bloc sometimes.
4. The conservatives will be an interesting party to watch. The principle of free votes adds an element of uncertainty. Would the conservative members toe the party line if requested by Harpur, to bring down the Liberals?
5. Could the dynamic entirely change if a recount unseats one of the Conservative "winners"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Potentially, the big winner in all of this, as I suggested a few days ago, may be Stephen Harper. He's done well enough, with 99 seats, that he's unlikely to face trouble within the party, and this defeat may give him the ammunition he needs to deal with the social conservatives. They may not have cost him the election (a Conservative majority was always unlikely) but they did hand Martin a strong minority.
|
How so?
Here, we had all the socos do much better than the progressive conservatives.
I say rather than deminishing the power of the social conservatives, the rise of the Greens increases their power. There is no future for the progressive conservatives, and Harper has managed to hang onto the seats across the country.
All the votes that have gone to the progressive conservatives will just continue to be redistributed among the various leftist flavours of Liberals, NDP and greens.
The only future for the Conservative party is to stand in contrast to all the others, thus attracting voters disenfranchised by the left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How so?
Here, we had all the socos do much better than the progressive conservatives.
I say rather than deminishing the power of the social conservatives, the rise of the Greens increases their power. There is no future for the progressive conservatives, and Harper has managed to hang onto the seats across the country.
All the votes that have gone to the progressive conservatives will just continue to be redistributed among the various leftist flavours of Liberals, NDP and greens.
The only future for the Conservative party is to stand in contrast to all the others, thus attracting voters disenfranchised by the left. |
That's a really odd view. I'd tend to say the exact opposite (and in turn agree with that part of the article). The only chance the Conservatives have of actually winning a federal election is to purge themselves of the stigma of being "right wing loons". It doesn't matter if that perception is actually acurate - it cost them the election. If they go your way, all you'll have is a more cohesive right leaning party that is about as likely to form a national government as the NDP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How so?
Here, we had all the socos do much better than the progressive conservatives.
I say rather than deminishing the power of the social conservatives, the rise of the Greens increases their power. There is no future for the progressive conservatives, and Harper has managed to hang onto the seats across the country.
All the votes that have gone to the progressive conservatives will just continue to be redistributed among the various leftist flavours of Liberals, NDP and greens.
The only future for the Conservative party is to stand in contrast to all the others, thus attracting voters disenfranchised by the left. |
I have to doubt that you have any imagination for anything other than yourself and where you are from.
Quebec is pissed off with Paul Martin and the federal Liberals. Ontario is pissed off that Quebec is pissed off with Paul, and they're pissed off at Liberals in general at the moment for their own reasons. All that pissed offedness translated into... 24 seats out of 181 for the Conservatives...
Give your head a shake! Social conservatives will never, that's N-E-V-E-R, form a federal government in this country. What you are saying is a recipe for the Conservatives to get wiped out everywhere except some places in the rural West, the Liberals to move to encompass the centre-right, and the NDP to form a government some fine day.
It's well past time that the more stubborn Westerners took the hint and stopped holding their collective breath waiting for the people of Quebec and Ontario to have the epiphany that would be required for them to wake up one day and say 'you know, that Stockwell Day fellow was right all along'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
I have to doubt that you have any imagination for anything other than yourself and where you are from.
|
Oh, I only have polls to guide my stances. Most Canadians disagree with the current status quo on abortion once they understand the current situation.
How many people support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, NYE?
A so-called 'social conservative', who came out and said that abortion ought to be restricted here in Canada, rather than imposing his agenda, would be listening to the will of the people.
Yet, the media would never forgive him.
The people respect someone who is honest, and forthright, moreso than someone who waffles on certain points. If we had a real debate on abortion, then I'm sure many people would side with the position of the conservatives on this issue.
Heck, the Conservatives are so socially-conservative that they have refused to table legislation on this issue? Why then did the folks in Ontario reject them?
A much better analysis shows that the Conservatives had very little in the way for a deal to the cities, unlike Layton. This can certainly be added to the Conservative platform, particularly here in Vancouver.
Imagine, the Federal government kicking in cash for the Winter Olympics, on the scale of what happened in Calgary in 88? They would win many votes in Vancouver if they did that.
The justification for this move would be that it costs less to invest money now, then it does to replace things when everything falls apart. Right now, the cities are having trouble keeping up, since they bear a disproportionate burden of the services.
quote:
All that pissed offedness translated into... 24 seats out of 181 for the Conservatives...
|
Which is why one ought to vote for the party rather than against the Liberals. Positive support is much sturdier than negative support.
quote:
is a recipe for the Conservatives to get wiped out everywhere except some places in the rural West, the Liberals to move to encompass the centre-right, and the NDP to form a government some fine day.
|
There is no more room on the left, NYE. The Greens, NDP, and Liberals are all splitting the left vote. The Conservatives need to offer something different than the Liberals, better than the Liberals, if they want to win.
quote:
It's well past time that the more stubborn Westerners took the hint and stopped holding their collective breath waiting for the people of Quebec and Ontario to have the epiphany that would be required for them to wake up one day and say 'you know, that Stockwell Day fellow was right all along'.
|
Quebeckers already lament the loss of their sovereignty. Such would not be the case if the abortion rate were lower in Quebec.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
We are all thankful that you think is universes away from the reality the rest of us live in, but your blind faith in your personal paradigm make you oblivious to that fact.
|
Well, would you accept evidence from Gallup?
quote:
TORONTO, ON – Gallup queried Canadians in November
on whether abortions should be legal, and in what
circumstances, and found that somewhat fewer Canadians favoured legalized abortions this year than last year when Gallup asked these same questions. Thirty-two percent (32%) of Canadians believe that abortions should be legal in all circumstances, down from 37% in 2000. Similar to last year, about half (52%) believe that abortions should only be legal in certain circumstances, while fourteen percent (14%) would make abortions illegal in all circumstances, up from 9% last year. Two percent (2%) hold no opinion on the
question.
|
This is from 2001, and I do not have the more recent figures since I do not have access to my files.
You can see the PDF for yourself at:
http://www.cric.ca/pdf/gallup/gallu...01_abortion.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The majority of Canadians are not happy with the leftist agenda on either issue, and are currently better represented by the Conservatives, then they are by the Liberals.
|
If that were at all true, then why did the Conservatives just get smoked by the Liberals? And yes, they did get smoked considering they had far more momentum and there was a point not too long before the election that people were thinking a Conservative majority wasn't out of the realm of possibility. Not to mention that they actually lost ground in the popular vote when compared to the two right parties combined in the last election. All of this in the face of large-scale scandals, corruption and general incompetence on the part of the Liberals.
Time to pull your head out of the sand, Ben.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, would you accept evidence from Gallup?
This is from 2001, and I do not have the more recent figures since I do not have access to my files.
You can see the PDF for yourself at:
http://www.cric.ca/pdf/gallup/gallu...01_abortion.pdf |
Yes, Ben. Canadians are desperate for a party that takes a strong position against abortion and gay marriage. From the Christian Heritage Party's website (in fact, the very first sentence on the site):
"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party..."
Seats won by CHP - 0
Votes cast for CHP - 40,265 (0.3% of popular vote)
In contrast, Stephen Harper got 34,646 votes in his own riding (which, incidently, also had a CHP candidate running and who received a whopping 225 votes).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flinx
|
 |
Toronto, ON CANADA
Nov 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Ben,
Why do you think restrictions need to be placed on abortion?
What restrictions do you think should be placed on abortion?
I work for a market research/polling company. The information posted in that Gallup poll is fun, interesting and completely meaningless.
The questions asked were:
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstance, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all
circumstances?"
"In which of these specific cases would you think an abortion should be legal?
- if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby
- if the woman's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy
- if agreed upon by a woman and her physician
- if the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children
- if it is within 5 months of conception
- if it is within 3 months of conception
- if conception is due to rape or incest"
I can guarantee you that the responses would be very different if the following question had been asked:
“Do you think a woman should be arrested, criminally charged and serve a jail term if she had an abortion under any circumstance, only in certain circumstances, or in no circumstances?”
“In which of these specific cases would you think the federal government should pass a law which would mean a woman would be arrested, criminally charged and serve a jail term if she had an abortion?
- if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby
- if the woman's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy
- if agreed upon by a woman and her physician
- if the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children
- if it is within 5 months of conception
- if it is within 3 months of conception
- if conception is due to rape or incest"
These are in fact the same question after all for the consequence of something being illegal is that you are arrested, charged criminally, and thrown in jail if found guilty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
I work for a market research/polling company. The information posted in that Gallup poll is fun, interesting and completely meaningless.
|
Well, I've been published for analysing these particular Gallup polls, so I wouldn't claim authority if I were you. Just a suggestion.
quote:
“Do you think a woman should be arrested, criminally charged and serve a jail term if she had an abortion under any circumstance, only in certain circumstances, or in no circumstances?”
|
And why should she be charged? When abortion was illegal, the only ones who ever got charged were the doctors.
The poll questions are legitimate, and I agree with you they should add one more question which was the centre of my analysis. I tried to determine how many people agreed with the statement that abortion should only be available to preserve the life of the mother, since Gallup did not ask that question.
quote:
These are in fact the same question after all for the consequence of something being illegal is that you are arrested, charged criminally, and thrown in jail if found guilty.
|
And for the reasons that I stated, the women ought not to be the ones going to jail. The doctors who profit off killing children should be the only ones to go to jail, not the women, who are often ignorant as to fetal development, and in many cases, pressured into having the abortion.
Your critique does nothing to assail my point that the majority of Canadians do wish to see abortion restricted in certain circumstances, such that the doctors will be charged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The majority of Canadians are not happy with the leftist agenda on either issue, and are currently better represented by the Conservatives, then they are by the Liberals.
|
Earth to Ben, Earth to Ben:
70% of Canadians voted for centre-left parties. The majority of Canadians rejected the out-dated, regressive policies of the Conservatives.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What is the Conservative's regressive policy on abortion?
A private members bill in parliament?
I suppose that means no private members bills should ever become law again in Canada, in order to protect the people from the ravages of the right. |
Are you familiar with the idea that only Nixon could go to China? It was good for a larf in a ST movie, but it is also very true.
Look at your own poll. 14% support abortion to be banned under all circumstances. They would be the base line of a socially conservative movement. That leaves 86% of the population that do not want to see ideological laws passed on this topic, and probably others.
Now, when a newly founded Conservative party is trying to get its legs under it, do you think it is a good idea to present the 86% with the prospect of ideological conservativism? Do you think any party that ever bases its platform on that 14% will ever form a government?
To put it bluntly, Ben, if you ever want to see reform of the open season on infants (which, btw, I find distasteful as well) it will have to be Liberals that do it. Any party from the right that fights an election on it, or that gets the that tail pinned on it during a campaign, is going to lose, big.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-06-2004 22:41
Attachment: 
|
