Canadian Dopers: The PMs address to the Nation tonight

Great Debates
21

And so now I’d like you ask yourself this:

How bad would Mulroney’s government had been if he’d been re-elected in 1993 and re-elected AGAIN in 1997?

A sportswriter once wrote, writing about how pro sports coaches get fired so often; “Managers are hired for good reasons and fired for good reasons.” His point was that when you hire someone to do a job, over time they change the conditions of their employment such that the reason you hired them is no longer relevant, and you have a new reason to fire them.

The Liberal victories in 1993 and 1997 were what was right for Canada at the time. In 1993, we needed an entirely new government; in 1997 it was the right course of action to keep them around. 2000 was kind of a wash, but… the election of the Liberals in 2004 was a mistake. **It is really, really bad for a democracy to elect the same party over and over. ** If you don’t believe me, try this experiment; Look up all the examples of democracies where the same party kept winning elections, more than four times. How many examples DON’T involve massive, widespread graft and corruption, nepotism on a criminal scale, use of state coercion to hurt opposition parties, etc. etc.?

We will now have a chance within the next nine months, sooner or later, to reverse the 2004 mistake, but if we don’t we’re going to pay for it down the road.

This blather about health care and gay marriage and stuff is all interesting but evidence suggests that these sorts of things tend to work out no matter who’s in power. A Harper government is NOT going to stop the inevitable creation of gay marriage as an institution. A Harper government is not going to do anything about health care that a Liberal government wouldn’t do anyway, sooner or later. It doesn’t matter if Harper is elected, and to be honest it doesn’t even matter all that much if by some miracle Jack Layton and the NDP are elected. It wouldn’t be a huge disaster if the frickin’ Green Party was elected. What really, really matters is that the Liberals AREN’T elected.

Re-electing the Liberals would justifiably convince the Liberals that they are immune from laws, ethics or bad PR. Corruption will increase, not decrease, no matter what Gomery does. A new Liberal government will result in a few sacrificial lambs going to prison, but once the Gomery report is forgotten (which it would be within three months) Martin’s government would simply resume a program of graft and corruption. No reason not to at that point. The government would become even less interested in democratic and electoral reform than it already is. Regionalism would increase, and national unity would suffer. Health care reform would be delayed. The longer you leave any government in power, the less interested they are in helping the country, and the more interested they are in helping themselves to the country’s money.

This is not something particular to Martin, or Jean Chretien, or Alfonse Gagliano or any of the other fools involved in Adscam; it’s true of ANY government. If Stephen Harper was elected I’m sure his government would move on fixing many things. But elect them three or four times and by that point they’ll be campaigning 12 months a year and stealing your money eight days a week and totally out of fresh ideas. Elect Jack Layton three or four times and by that time the NDP will be as hopelessly corrupt and graft-ridden as Mulroney’s gang was.

It is a critical part of democracy not only that people get a say but that you rotate the people in power. We’re now at a point where we can make the Canadian state stronger by virtue of a fresh infusion of new blood. Harper, Layton, whoever; I’ll vote Harper because he’s likelier to win, but almost anyone would be a good choice. But if Martin is re-elected, I absolutely, firmly guarantee you with every ounce of sincerity I can muster that Canada will end up deeply regretting it, far more than you might think possible.

At least Martin got started on paying down the debt & slow spending and our dollar and the economy snapped right back. Well, let’s see - Clinton & the Democrats did that in the U.S. and the Liberals in Canada while the Republicans and Conservatives spent wildly, ruined the currency (or kept it a mess) and the economy. The decision will be hard but no matter who is in office, Quebec will ALWAYS be corrupt. It always has had corruption and always will. Hopefully, the country will break up completely and Ontario will become a kind of Singapore (already produces more cars than Michigan) & without a National govt sucking down 100’s of billions and welfare provinces begging for shipments of money (to oil rich places like Alberta and Newf esp), Ontario will learn to fly.
[/QUOTE]

22

Saskatchewan has also moved into the “have province” category as of late last year/early this year, though largely due to the skyrocketing price of oil.

23

On another message board I frequent, someone pointed out that the easiest way to cause conservatives from the Prairies to fall apart is to elect them (cf. Diefenbaker, Clark.)

24

In the latest news… In a craven attempt to hold power, the Liberals may cut a deal with the NDP to give the NDP more control over economic decisions including tax policy, in exchange for the NDP standing with the Liberals to thwart a non-confidence motion.

And thus, a party that got 19 seats in the last election will wind up having more power than the conservatives, who got 99. Aren’t Canadian politics wonderful?

25

Right, because this only happens in Canadian politics. :rolleyes:

26

Combined the Liberals and NDP received over 50% of the total votes cast last year. The NDP also got 16% of the vote and only 6% of the seats, while the Tories got 29% of the vote and 32% of the seats. What’s your beef, exactly?

Anyways, the combined seats of the Liberals and NDP are only barely a majority. (Are they even? I thought a Liberal from Newfoundland or somewhere died a while ago.) 2-3 dissenting members of either party could topple it.

The Conservatives are perfectly free to offer a similar deal to the Liberals, and it would be a more attractive offer because they actually have enough seats to guarantee a majority. It’s not the NDPs fault that the Tories aren’t willing to offer such a deal. Being outraged over Liberal corruption is fine, but complaining about a minority government making a deal for support from an opposition party is just stupid. That’s how minority governments work.

27

Perhaps that’s his plan - just think what a boost the economy he could take credit for, if everyone did the same!

28

This is in contrast to what? Who do you think wrote the rest of the budget, anyway? A minority government requires concessions and coalitions. The Liberals are the ones with the power, because they get to pick their allies. If they had fewer seats, they’d absolutely need to placate the Conservatives.

29

Yes, I understand. This is what you get with parliamentary government. However, it does lead to strange things, such as the second most popular party being shut out while a fringe party gets a pretty good chunk of power.

30

Argh. 16% of the vote is not a fringe party, Sam. They may be small, but after 70 years, forming numerous provincial governments, and pulling in 1 of 6 federal voters for a long time now, they are not a fringe party. And the Liberals have so far played more to the Tories than to anyone else in making concessions. The original form of the budget was clearly aimed at appeasing the Tories. How the heck have they been “shut out”?

31

I agree. The Budget was a nice Torrie lite budget. Now Layton wants him to remove the “Corproate” tax cuts and rejigger the budget for social spending. Guess what the Liberals are likely to meet them half way. Why?

Because the Conservatives have all but said they will put in a vote of non confidence with the Bloc. Martin is doing what a minority PM does, vacillate between different party philosophies to keep themselves in power.

What bugs me is the Conservatives testing the water before saying anything concrete. If they truly believe the Liberals are criminals or courrupt they should vote on that not whether they think it is polotically the right time to gain votes.

At least Layton is obvious with his oppurtunism and Duceppe is the same stinking filthy seperatist. I know where these two stand.

32

That’s a pretty good point, and really shows how gun-shy Harper has become. He was sooooo sure of himself, just before the election, when the polls showed him ahead. They ran the last election on the sponsorship scandal and nobody cared.

When there is another election, and the Concervatives get a minority government, will the cozey up with the Bloc? How close are the two parties/leaders?

33

I’d say miles apart. The only common ground the two parties have is the toppling of the Liberals. I don’t see any real Bloc/Conservative alliance surviving past a vote of no confidence.

I’m pretty unimpressed with any of our national leaders. They vacillate too much and spend more time checking the polls rather than guiding the Nation. Maybe after the next election if it ends in another minority (And let’s face it unless something more earthshattering comes out it will be) each party should do a leadership revue and dump the lot of 'em.