PDA

View Full Version : We have no government!


rustypouch
28th November 2005, 04:51 PM
That's right. There is no confidence in the Liberals.

Election sometime in January.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/28/noconfidencevote051128.html

Thoughts?

CapelDodger
28th November 2005, 05:26 PM
That's right. There is no confidence in the Liberals.

Thoughts?
It's terribly absolute, isn't it? No confidence. Not just not quite enough, but none at all. To an outsider it seems rather un-Canadian.

DanishDynamite
28th November 2005, 05:58 PM
It's terribly absolute, isn't it? No confidence. Not just not quite enough, but none at all. To an outsider it seems rather un-Canadian.
Sorry, but what do you mean by none at all? According to the article the vote of no-confidence was 171 to 133.

Unless of course, you were being overly literal and perhaps making a joke? :)

RebeccaBradley
29th November 2005, 08:12 AM
My fellow Canadians....here we go again, eh?

For myself, I liked having a minority government. Lacking proportional representation, it seems to be the best way for supporters of opposition parties to have a voice of sorts in Parliament. But hey, I'm an NDP supporter in Alberta, of all places; our voice here is the most high-pitched of squeaks.

My prediction is another minority government; I'm not sure who the PM will be, though I suspect Martin will pull it off again. It just seems like a lot of trouble and expense to go through for not much change.

As for a winter election, meh. I'd vote in fifty below if I had to. Though as a campaign volunteer, I'm not looking forward to trudging through the snow to shove leaflets into people's mailboxes.

RebeccaBradley
29th November 2005, 08:24 AM
Sorry, but what do you mean by none at all? According to the article the vote of no-confidence was 171 to 133.

Unless of course, you were being overly literal and perhaps making a joke? :)

The 133 were the Liberals, who apparently had confidence in themselves. The 171 were everybody else.

punchdrunk
29th November 2005, 08:49 AM
So what happens if the Liberals get a plurality of seats but no majority? Do the NDPs, Conservatives, and Bloc call for another no-confidence vote in a month? How often can you hold new elections? Your 'parliament' system of government frightens and confuses me.

andrewceo
29th November 2005, 08:54 AM
Thats the first time I have ever heard of anything Canadian frightening anyone. How about Poutine? Now that's scary!

Manny
29th November 2005, 08:59 AM
Now, now. We have the higest regard for Prime Minister Poutine.

andrewceo
29th November 2005, 09:00 AM
Lay off Chretien. Besides, he's retired to enjoy his advertising millions.

Jorghnassen
29th November 2005, 09:03 AM
If we get another minority Liberal government (which is somewhat likely at the moment given the current polls), there won't be an election so quickly. Calling a non-confidence vote early would certainly piss off the electorate, and they would then probably vote for a majority liberal government again (because neither the NDP or the Conservatives appear as a viable alternative to the majority of Canadians (meaning Ontario, Quebec and the two cities of 1 million+ west of the former)). Either way, after next election, all that corruption/Gomery inquiry thing will be forgotten, so we can expect, as Rick Mercer puts it, that the Liberals will rule Canada forever...

Blue Monk
29th November 2005, 09:08 AM
No Canadian government!?

How can you tell?

Disclaimer: These comments were made entirely in jest. I have many friends who are openly Canadian.

Nyarlathotep
29th November 2005, 09:09 AM
Sorry, but what do you mean by none at all? According to the article the vote of no-confidence was 171 to 133.

Unless of course, you were being overly literal and perhaps making a joke? :)

He means they are an anarcho-syndicalist commune.:p

Jas
29th November 2005, 10:26 AM
*sigh*

Unfortuanately, it will probably mean another Liberal gov't. I can't see the Liberals losing many seats in Ontario - AdScam didn't see to phase them.

There was even an article in the Globe & Mail a few months ago, where the argument was made that a few million wasn't that much to get worked up about, because when you averaged it out between Canadians, it worked out to a large coffee from Timmie Ho's per.

I do see them losing quite a few seats in Quebec, but I think those will get picked up by the Bloc and NDP (not sure about Layton's base in Quebec though). Harper might get a few out in Alberta, but nothing big.

I'm not upset about the election, I'm pissed about AdScam and the guy having to do a speaking tour.

Jas
29th November 2005, 10:33 AM
Sorry, but what do you mean by none at all? According to the article the vote of no-confidence was 171 to 133.

Unless of course, you were being overly literal and perhaps making a joke? :)

When a minority gov't like this is overthrown (or, when the attempt is made), it's called a 'Non-Confidence Vote'.

Badger
29th November 2005, 10:43 AM
I think this is going to be stupid.

Based on what's coming out of the Conservative, and Liberal camps, it's going to be a gong show of a campaign.

The Conservatives have been handed many sticks, bottles, pipes, baseball bats, guns, bows and arrows, and other methods of beating the Liberals on various issues, and all they seem capable of doing is bleating like large sheep (not that there's anything wrong with sheep) about one topic....the Gomery Report, which hasn't even been issued yet.... with pompous indignation.

The Liberals are playing the ole "Look at how evil and scary Steven Harper is! If you look at him out of the corner of he looks like the devil. Look! Look! Horns!" and "The economy is doing well" like they have a positive effect on that.

The NDP have moved slightly to the center, and seem to be making some sense (and it really sticks in my throat to say that as I'm a long time conservative).

I predict we get the same batch of hosers we have now. I guess we get what we deserve, though.

Badger
29th November 2005, 02:00 PM
I think this is going to be stupid.

Based on what's coming out of the Conservative, and Liberal camps, it's going to be a gong show of a campaign.

The Conservatives have been handed many sticks, bottles, pipes, baseball bats, guns, bows and arrows, and other methods of beating the Liberals on various issues, and all they seem capable of doing is bleating like large sheep (not that there's anything wrong with sheep) about one topic....the Gomery Report, which hasn't even been issued yet.... with pompous indignation.

The Liberals are playing the ole "Look at how evil and scary Steven Harper is! If you look at him out of the corner of he looks like the devil. Look! Look! Horns!" and "The economy is doing well" like they have a positive effect on that.

The NDP have moved slightly to the center, and seem to be making some sense (and it really sticks in my throat to say that as I'm a long time conservative).

I predict we get the same batch of hosers we have now. I guess we get what we deserve, though.

Exhibit A:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2005/11/29/1329069-cp.html

The starting gun no sooner sounds than Stephen Harper shoots himself and his party squarely in the foot.

Exhibit B:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2005/11/29/1329295-cp.html

"It's not BS, however it is strong and helps plants grow" from the liberals.

Gah!

FFed
29th November 2005, 02:06 PM
I am glad there is an election but I also predict another Liberal minority. I think Harper will be tossed after that and then they will have another election in about two years. But after this election I think there will be an even stronger western separation movement. I am already hearing lots about it and I am all for it.

FFed
29th November 2005, 02:09 PM
double post.

CapelDodger
29th November 2005, 04:53 PM
Unless of course, you were being overly literal and perhaps making a joke? :)
There was levity intended. I should resist the temptation. All the same, "No Confidence" does seem harsh. It could at least be put in Latin, to take the sting off.

DanishDynamite
29th November 2005, 04:59 PM
There was levity intended. I should resist the temptation. All the same, "No Confidence" does seem harsh. It could at least be put in Latin, to take the sting off.
I agree that more things should be solely expressed in Latin. Bush's speeches, for example.

gtc
29th November 2005, 05:17 PM
Hello,

I have a couple of questions.

1) Why did the NDP support this, are they hoping to gain more influence over the government?

2) Wikipedia says that there are two vacant seats. Does anyone know why?

3) Does Canada have by-elections if a seat falls vacant?

Thanks awfully

Jorghnassen
29th November 2005, 06:21 PM
Hello,
3) Does Canada have by-elections if a seat falls vacant?


Yes.

TriangleMan
30th November 2005, 05:07 AM
I honestly don't know why the NDP went along with this unless they are hoping for a majority Liberal-NDP coalition, with the NDP having more seats and therefore more of a say. A bit of a gamble though.

If the Conservatives have a minority it will be very shaky. None of the other parties are in general agreement with the Conservatives so for any bill to pass the C's will have to negotiate to get one of the other parties' support every single time they submit a bill. Since the other three parties were in support of items like gay marriage it is unlikely that the Conservatives will be able to overturn it - and if they use the notwithstanding clause the other parties may take them down, resulting in another election.

Mephisto
30th November 2005, 06:10 AM
I heartily sympathize with our good neighbors to the north, we here in the U.S. have the BEST government money can buy!

rustypouch
30th November 2005, 08:23 AM
I heartily sympathize with our good neighbors to the north, we here in the U.S. have the BEST government money can buy!

I seriously hope that was sarcasm.

But I am unsure who I will vote for. Right now it is between the NDP and the Greens.

We need a change from the Liberals, but I do not agree with many of the Conservatives' policies, and do not want Harper as PM.

If there were still Joe Clark style Tories around, I could go for them.

RebeccaBradley
30th November 2005, 09:13 AM
You and me both, Rusty. I actually volunteered for Joe's campaign in the previous-election-plus-one, then switched to the NDP when the Tories joined the Alliance. But I honestly don't know what Jack Layton hoped to gain by pushing the non-confidence vote, especially as he's perceived as having climbed into bed with Harper. Eeuw.

Oh, for the days of Stockwell Day! Canadian politics was never funnier.

2) Wikipedia says that there are two vacant seats. Does anyone know why?
Not sure. I know that at least two MPs died during this parliament, and maybe the by-elections weren't held yet?

The Central Scrutinizer
30th November 2005, 09:17 AM
If only we in the US could have no government. Things would be so much better.

Segnosaur
30th November 2005, 01:07 PM
But I am unsure who I will vote for. Right now it is between the NDP and the Greens.

Umm... when you consider the green party, consider this little tidbit from their web site:

Funding of alternative medical procedures and practices should be given the same consideration as conventional medicine.

http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Alternative+Health+Care

Jorghnassen
30th November 2005, 01:24 PM
Umm... when you consider the green party, consider this little tidbit from their web site:

Funding of alternative medical procedures and practices should be given the same consideration as conventional medicine.

http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Alternative+Health+Care

Why, oh why, must this always happen? The minute you want to be environmentally-friendly you are joined by people pushing a woo agenda on the matter...

/though the Sierra Club rated the NDP's environmental policies above the Greens, which had the same rating as the BQ.

brodski
30th November 2005, 01:43 PM
Umm... when you consider the green party, consider this little tidbit from their web site:

Funding of alternative medical procedures and practices should be given the same consideration as conventional medicine.

http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Alternative+Health+Care

I agree with that policy entirely, so long as funding is based on proven efficacy (and safety), measured by objective means. :)

Of course if Alt. Med. could show efficacy to the same standards as real medicine, it wouldn't be "alt" anymore would it?

Jas
30th November 2005, 02:04 PM
Umm... when you consider the green party, consider this little tidbit from their web site:

Funding of alternative medical procedures and practices should be given the same consideration as conventional medicine.

http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Alternative+Health+Care


Hmmm. Thanks for pointing that out. No more protest-vote-due-to-typo-in-leaflet again, I'm voting for Jim Prentice.

TriangleMan
30th November 2005, 02:21 PM
It is times like this I wish the Rhino Party was still around . . . :(

rustypouch
30th November 2005, 02:27 PM
Or the Natural Law Party.

They had Doug Henning as a spokesman.

Mephisto
30th November 2005, 03:20 PM
I seriously hope that was sarcasm.

No way, I was completely serious. The oil companies, the defense contractors, the prescription drug industry and corporations like Enron have all paid big money for the government we now enjoy in the U.S.