This is where I wish it had been released to the public, because I haven’t been surfing these blogs and I’d really like to hear what Brault said–especially if it’s supposed to be government-shattering news.
Honestly? IMHO, I doubt Harper–or Layton, or Duceppe–have enough popular support to win a snap election. Maybe if all these explosive inquiry results were published and people took a step back from the Martin gov’t and said, “Whoa hey, things are really messed up here”, but right now? It’d be political suicide.
Personally, I agree with that sentiment. I actually got to vote in the last federal election, which quite frankly rocked (I get a little sick of my Canadian-in-the-States disenfranchisement situation). But I suspect that more Canadians will echo Gorsnak’s response than mine. Which is why I think that any party who actually calls a vote that brings down the government is going to take a hit in the polls afterwards.
It forces work on the MP’s. They have to campaign in addition to doing the jobs we elected them to do just last summer. I think most Canadians would much rather see Parliament keep doing its job instead of going out on the campaign trail again.
There are times where I believe the entire Liberal party could be shown at a baby eating banquet and teh Liberal apologists will still say how we still have to vote for them because of no “Viable alternative”.
I was a Liberal supporter. I even made the grievous mistake of voting for Norman Bates as our Premiere. I have not been a fan of the Tories, even less so to this changeling call itself the Conservative party. However, I can no longer sit back and just give these Liberal bozos another pass. A Conservative minority may be enough to get the old guard Liberals tossed on their ear.
I’d love to see the entire cabinet lose their seats in the next election. A good old fashioned house cleaning would fix things and then next election I can go back to Liberal as long as they show they’ve learned their lesson and reject their current raison d’ etre (Staying in power no matter what) and adopt policies and a vision of what they want the Country to be.
But no… this testimony will not overthrow the government.
The next election will likely be fought on social issues as a smoke screen. Gay marriage and whatnot being used to paint the Conservative as a bunch of red necked regional bigots. (Unfortunately there are a few of those in the party… that party needs a vacuuming too) and tout the Liberals as teh defenders of Canadian rights. toss in Health care to court those Liberals who don’t agree with SSM and bingo another mushy minority
Martin will claim another victory to appease his ghost daddy and we’ll slump through another few years of Liberal medocrity.
My response above was rather flippant. This is closer to my true sentiment. So far this session of parliament hasn’t actually passed much. Call an election now, and all the bills introduced die and they have to start over from scratch in another 4 months. There’s work to be done, and I want them to do it, not campaign for six weeks and then return another unstable minority government to parliament so we can play the game again next year.
Having checked out with MEBuckner the permissability of posting a link to the blog posting summaries of the testimony, I now do so. For the record, it is my belief that posting a link to the blog does not violate the laws of the United States, the State of Illinois, nor the terms of the SDMB registration agreement. Furthermore, I do not believe that posting a link to the blog is a contravention of the laws of Canada, nor is it a breach of the publication ban. With that said…
I don’t think it’ll do much, even in Quebec. My dad was one of the many outrageously pissed former Liberal supporters in Montreal, and switched his vote in the last election-- but who the hell is he gonna vote for? The anglos and allophones aren’t going to vote for the Bloc, and as long as the Conservatives have actual god-fearing homo-hating social conservatives in their membership, nobody who lives in any large urban area is going to vote Tory.
Everyone who cares already knew how rotten the Grits were before the last federal go-round. Having Brault testify (and being under wraps because he’s got a criminal trial coming up in Quebec) just confirms what had already been confirmed.
Halliburton’s got nothing on Desmairis and Power Corp. Half the power brokers in Ottawa are affiliated with this guy or one of his companies, including the head of the national news network, the CBC.
Then perhaps you ought to learn more about Halliburton. Looks like the same story, but witih a helluva lot more money involved down here, and a helluva lot more people dead.
You *were * going to tell us how you got that curious notion in your head, weren’t you?
That cite is from the same Mark Steyn who made up the story about Hillary Clinton claiming to be named after Edmund Hillary, right? He should be believed, well, why?
My point is not that Stephen Harper would do a better job campaigning in a referendum.
My point is that you (like a lot of people) are repeating the tired and, frankly, ridiculous line that “well, this sponsorship thing isn’t really important; we should still vote Liberal because they do everything else right. What’s some wasted money? So they’re crooks, so what?”
Or in your words:
There is the very real possibility that the result of the Liberal government’s rule from 1993 to 2004 will be a successful referendum. Anyone who thinks that a Conservative government would be worse than the BREAKUP OF THE COUNTRY is insane. Stephen Harper is not Pol Pot, for Christ’s sake.
Let’s be honest; Jean Charest’s government in Quebec is doomed, doomed, doomed. The PQ will win the next Quebec vote and call a referendum, and there’s a good chance Gilles Duceppe will be PQ leader by the time that happens. And they’ve got a shot at winning. Maybe the “alternative” to the Liberals in 2000 or 2004 was not having a constitutional crisis and the breakup of the country in 2006. This is about a lot more than just the Liberal/Conservative non-positions on gay marriage.
You now see what can happen when you just elect crooks over and over; separatism has had new life breathed into it. THAT is what this sort of atrocious behaviour can cause. Fraud and corruption can cause a hell of a lot more damage than just losing a few bucks; they destroy the people’s confidence in the government, with potentially horrible results.
Certainly, but I don’t see any reason to believe that a Conservative government would make a successful referendum less likely at this point. Are you saying Charest’s huge drop in popularity is a result of actions taken by the federal Liberals? I confess I’m sufficiently isolated out here that I don’t know. But it seems to me from what I do know that it’s an issue of provincial politics, that the PQ will retake the National Assembly because Quebeckers are unhappy about Charest’s governance, and not because they’ve become more sovereigntist. I don’t see that a new referendum is any more likely to be successful than the last two. If I’m wrong about this, I’d be happy to be corrected.
But would potential ‘Oui’ voters change their mind because Ontario voted the Liberals out (because let’s face it, most of the rest of the country already has)? That seems to be what you’re saying, but I don’t know why we should think that would be the case. It’s not like the Conservatives are real popular in Quebec, in case you hadn’t noticed. I don’t see that there’s any federal party I could vote for that would be taken by Quebecois as a sign I don’t want them to leave. If I vote Liberal, they think I endorse the corrupt attempt to buy their loyalty. If I vote Conservative, they think I endorse the long tradition of Reform/Alliance contempt for francophones.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a Conservative minority would downplay its social agenda and focus on issues it has in common with the Bloc, such as decreased federal oversight of provincial programs, etc. Maybe the parties between themselves could improve the image of the federal government in Quebec, not least because the Bloc would hold the balance of power in such a situation. I don’t know that I’d much mind such a government, given the sorts of things they would agree on, but I also think it has a good chance of going down in flames after the very tenuous policy areas the two parties hold in common are exhausted.
If you hear a loud banging, that’s me hitting my head against the desk.
Once more, with feeling: I am not arguing Harper will do a better job in a referendum campaign. What I am saying is that it’s the attitude of “Let’s elect the Liberals, they’re okay even though they stole our money” is what got us INTO this mess. I’m trying to illustrate what’s happened, not writing a prescription; I am trying to use Santayana’s advice, saying we have to learn from history in order to not repeat it.
What this entire horrible mess illustrates it that you are not going to win in the long run by electing thieves, because in the long run it’s going to be about more than money. And now we’re going to see how much more.
In part, absolutely; this will be a tipping point.
Would a referendum win? I’ve got three words for you: Point six percent. That was how many more voted they needed to win last time. I like blackjack and poker, but only fools play Russian roulette.
No, it’s not.
My point is not that electing the Conservatives in 2005 will help win a 2006-2007 referendum. My point is that it was by NOT electing them before - in 2004 - that we got ourselves into this specific mess. Actually, it’s not specifically that we didn’t elect Conservatives, because we could have avoided this mess by voting NDP or Green or PC in 2000 or whatever; it was the “I Will Vote Liberal Because Stealing Money Doesn’t Matter As Opposed To My Unfocused Fears About The Other Parties” attitude that got us into this mess. It convinced the Liberal Party - rightly - that Canadians didn’t care about them stealing money and acting above the law.
Well, Canadians in English Canada may not care, but Quebecois sure do. And in the next couple of years, we’re about to reap a whirlwind.
See, I’m not saying we have to elect Conservatives or we’re fucked. I’m saying we’re already fucked. I think it’s too late to change our cavalier attitude towards crime and corruption - may as well do it, though, and cross our fingers. We may dodge this bullet now that it appears the publication ban will hold for awhile. If we don’t, though, let’s not pretend this isn’t the fault of the Liberals. And this is, after all, a democracy.
Ok so most of the ban has been lifted. Anyone wanna guess what the rea fallout will be. The only thing I like hearing right now is the Liberals claiming that “these are only allegations” especially after using allegations to Smear the the Bloc over the last few days over a couple of $100 000.
Bogus employees…
Paying kickbacks to Liberal party members in bags of cash??? Cripes!
Will the F$%#^ Conservatives do the right thing and let the Governement fall and stop propping it up!
So what in the blue blazes do you want from me, exactly?!? You want me to go back in time and work to get Stockwell Day elected? It’s beginning to seem like it. Like it or not (and I don’t), we’re in the current situation, and it only makes sense to make political decisions on the basis of the likely consequences of our current actions. If we’re really at the brink of a seperatist catastrophe in Quebec, it behooves us to vote for the federal government we think would be best able to deal with that situation. It makes no sense to vote based on the theory that if we’d voted that way two elections ago we might not now be in the current situation.
Except that these goings on were not public knowledge during the '97 and '00 elections. Even it it had been, Reform/Alliance simply wasn’t viable nationally. That’s not the fault of Liberal supporters, it’s the fault of the right’s inability to get its act together. Maybe we should blame the whole mess on Mulroney. Or the people who voted against Charlottetown.
I’m having a hard time with this. What, exactly, were the reasons to vote against the Liberals in 2000? We knew nothing about Adscam. I honestly can’t remember any issues that played against the Liberals. The gun registry in the west, of course. What else? In the 2000 election, there was no “I Will Vote Liberal Because Stealing Money Doesn’t Matter As Opposed To My Unfocused Fears About The Other Parties” sentiment because we didn’t know there was any extensive corruption (as opposed to garden variety corruption that has existed in every government in history). So I don’t understand how it was this sentiment that got us into trouble. The Liberals won that one because they were so far as we knew doing a generally good job.
If it makes you feel better, I’ve seen the details of Brault’s testimony now, and if it’s true, there’s no way I can condone the funneling of money back into the Liberal party. So they’ve lost my vote (well, if that makes sense given that I voted NDP last time).
How about the gutting of the Canadian Armed Forces? That was issue #1 for me. During the Liberal’s rule, we went from being one of the most respected militaries around (man for man) to being a laughingstock. As a consequence, we went from being players on the world stage to being a country that everyone simply ignores.
And the 2 billion dollar useless gun registry, which made criminals out of about 2 million Canadians, was a disaster. Oh, and remember how the Liberals were against the GST and promised to abolish it when they got into power?
How about Chretien’s bypassing government procurement standards and ordering himself $100 million worth of personal jets from Bombardier, after having compaigned on the waste of the Conservatives for spending 1/100 that amount to refit the current Prime ministerial aircraft?
Do you know what his excuse was? “We acted quickly because we had money at the end of the year.”
Or the fact that Chretien used those jets routinely to go golfing in Florida?
At what point do you stop giving that miserable collection of crooks and incompetents a pass simply because they happen to match up somewhat with your ideology?
That’s nice, Sam, but that’s not very scandalous. It’s mostly policy you don’t agree with, but which was nonetheless supported by a great many Canadians. And it ignores the fact that the Liberals balanced the budget and have presided over a period of great prosperity. The only thing you’ve got there resembling scandal is the jets, which is pretty small potatoes. And you forgot that whole golf course/hotel loan thing, which would do more to support your case. I contend that re-electing the Liberals in 2000 was at the time a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given their record in government.
I’ve been lurking here for a few months now, and I waited to see if I could find a thread in which I could bring something new before registering. Since I’m a francophone Quebecer, and RickJay and Gorsnak have been talking about a possible referendum, I guess I can add a different point of view.
I disagree. Grey is right, if Charest’s government is so unpopular, it’s because it doesn’t seem to have any idea where it’s going. In just the last few months, the government had to change its mind on Hydro-Québec’s Suroît power plant project, the location of the University of Montreal’s hospital and the financing of some private Jewish schools. Now, the major issues they face are the student strikes and the complete lack of police control in Kanesatake (though I must admit that they were able to present a deal that most student groups accepted). Charest’s problem isn’t the federal Liberals, it’s his own government’s work.
Duceppe could be the next PQ leader, but that’s not obvious: there are many other pretenders. Also, no matter how unpopular Charest’s Liberals become, they still have a majority government, and they don’t have to hold elections before 2008. I don’t think they will, either; unless they do something fantastic to restore their popularity, they will wait until the last minute.
However, RickJay, you are probably correct that if there is a next referendum, it could very well go to the Yes side. I think it was Landry who said that the simple passage of time helps sovereignism, since older people who tend to be more federalist die, while younger people who tend to be more sovereignist get the right to vote. It sounds a little macabre, but he’s probably right. But on the other hand, if you’ll excuse my asking so, what would be so awful with an eventual Yes vote? It might be problematic to the country’s (countries’) economy, but that doesn’t seem obvious to me, and on the other hand, it would solve a lot of constitutional problems. If Québec isn’t happy in Canada, and there is no way to change the current relations between the federal and provincial governments, well, separation could be a good solution for both countries.
I think this could mean the difference between a Liberal minority and a Conservative minority government, if a non-confidence vote in the Commons and a new election happen soon.
If the Conservatives can successfully sell themselves as a non-relogious but socially-conservative alternative, they could attract the socially-libertarian voters who desire financial prudence and transparency but want their personal lives to be left alone, and that could make the additional difference between a weak Conservative and a strong Conservative government.
The NDP and the Greens have their work cut out for them: laying out clear policy alternatives to attract disaffected ex-Liberal voters.
I suspect the next election will be the Conservatives’ to lose.
The Liberals promised the gun registry would cost no more than 2 million dollars. Then they said 10 million. Then they promised that they’d kill it if it went over some amount - I can’t remember how much, but I think it was on the order of 100 million. It’s at 2 billion and counting.
The Liberal red book promised the repeal of the GST if they were elected. Once they got in power, they never mentioned it again.
The liberals promise the moon, and break their promises with impugnity. Over and over again, and Canadians never wise up.
There have been several reports from the auditor general in the past ten years which were scathing in their criticism of the Liberal’s financial dealing and poor controls over taxpayer’s money.
And let’s talk about that jet deal - you know, the one that you claim is ‘small potatoes’. We’re talking about 100 million dollars. Jean Chretien picked up the phone, called his buddy at Bombardier, and simply ordered himself some jets. He did it without the approval of cabinet, over the objections of senior ministers and the military, and pushed the deal through in one day in violation of federal purchasing guidelines. So why did he do it? Two reasons: Bombardier is in Quebec, and Bombardier is a heavy donator to the Liberal Party. This was a pure payoff for political favors, and nothing more. A couple of years earlier, Chretien lambasted the conservatives for spending 2.5 million to upgrade the current Prime Minister’s jet. He called it a ‘tremendous extravagence’. That jet is still sitting on the tarmac, perfectly serviceable, and completely unused. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Then there are the liberal patronage appointments - too numerous to count.
Then there was the issue with Pearson Airport. The details are fuzzy now, but as I recall, Chretien had a meeting with some company that wanted to be involved in the privatization of the airport, and that company claims that Chretien demanded $25,000 for his campaign in return for his support. That company eventually got the contract for Pearson.
Then there was the cancellation of the Sea King upgrade, which cost Canadians over $500 million dollars.
The list is a lot longer, that’s just the stuff I could come up with in a few minutes.
But here’s the problem. The Liberals can survive in a minority government because the opposition parties are split on the right and left of the Liberals. The NDP will not side with the Conservatives, and the Bloc tends to oppose the Conservatives as well. So there’s never enough support to bring down the government.
A Conservative minority government is much more fragile, because all the other parties are to the left of them, and likely to vote as a bloc against the Conservatives. The worst-case scenario as far as I can see is that the Conservatives will win a minority government, which will then fall on a non-confidence motion in a short period of time - perhaps a few months. Then the spin will be that the Conservatives are amateurs who cannot be trusted to govern, and they’ll be marginalized for another decade.