My mistake. I thought provincial labour laws covered everyone but federal civil servants.
And that party’s members voted to join with the Alliance to become the Conservative party. 90% of them voted to, in fact.
Timeline
I would suggest that given they knew what they were voting for in a combined party and agreed to do so with a 90% acceptance rate, that former MP’s like Joe ‘Who?’ Clark weren’t representing the wishes of his party’s members as much as his own personal agenda. Especially given that he has thrown his support behind a liberal candidate for this election thus giving weight to the idea that there wasn’t a difference between the former PC’s and Liberals.
I truly wish that we could have a true fiscally conservative party without collecting all the wackjob, religious nuts that go along with it. As there is no other option for me I have to vote for them. The only saving grace is that the left side of the Liberals, the NDP/Green Party, collect that side of the spectrum’s kooks so it is easy to keep tabs on them.
The way I see it:
The far left: Comprised of the extreme leftist elements in the Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party.
-Would begger the country with anti-trade, regulations, high taxes, and generally anti-business agenda. They forget who actually employs people and that an employed person generally needs less social services. Chance of implementing their social policies once in power? Very high.
The far right: Portions of the new Conservative party.
-Wants to abolish rights to abortion. Is anti-gay marriage. Most likely racist in nature (Although saying you hate someone because of their skin colour is hardly worse than hating someone because they are in a higher tax bracket as the left seems to do IMHO and it is not like the other parties have had their own share of racists). Chance of implementing their social policies once in power? Not very likely.
A fascinating link with all available results for every riding in every previous Canadian election. Seemed like the place to put it. Didn’t even know this info was available.
Here in Ottawa we’re trying to get a Shriner’s Hospital. Now, this would be a private, American hospital that, as I understand it, would be non-profit.
What are the Liberal and NDP positions on such a venture?
The Election is days away and I’m still unsure.
I’ve watched the debates, I’ve read the platforms and listen to the leaders and my local candidates. I’ve flipped around listening to the pundants I even did a lousy web survey to see who’s politics I agreed with most.
Damn, I’m not sure what I’m to do. Come election day I’m just going to have to hope that my gut feeling is based on all that I have taken in so far and is correct for what I believe.
With so much at stake I’m hoping that this time round we get a large turn out. Every vote counts and there are no wasted votes… except maybe the Marijuana party. (I don’t like one platform parties)
I’m envious of those of you who have such a firm decision early on. Should be a wild ride Monday night. :eek:
MAY DOG HELP US ALL!
I’ll throw my two cents in here too. I’m going to vote NDP. I’m in a riding that contains one of the worst Liberal MPs but he still manages to win because of the immigrant vote. You can probably guess which riding it is. Anyways, I can’t vote for him because of his ethnicity and how he feels about people of my ethnicity. Put me in any other riding in Canada and I could consider voting Liberal, but not here. I’ve spoken to the Conservative candidate and he seems like a nice guy and we ended up agreeing to disagree with respect to social issues. So they’re out. Not voting for Green because as much as I like parts of their platform, there are two things that I don’t really like. One, Jim Harris, I just don’t like the guy. I watched him debate on Newsworld last Sunday and he didn’t impress me at all. Martin could learn a thing or two from him on how to not answer a question. I remember the Liberal cornered him on the issue of a child-care referendum and he started going off about proportional representation. Secondly, as much as any other parties economic platforms may not line up, the Green Party platform seems completely off-base to me. To quote left-wing mag Now Magazine:
So I’m left voting for the NDP. In my mind, they’re the least bitter of the four pills to swallow. Not that it matters anyways, my riding is going 70% Liberal.
Quebec also has quite a large percentage of the seats, with 70 odd out of 308. Doesn’t stop them form being fairly blatant about their dislike for the language policies of this country. Plus they would have to listen to their Reform/Alliance grassroots, precisely because they like being in power, have to keep their main powerbase happy.
This made me laugh. And I know they vote dto join the Alliance party, but immediately after quite a few MPs left and either sat independently or joined the Liberals. Says something to me.
Why do you think that? Seems to me you think this to appease your conscience as you hold your nose and vote for the Alliance. But I don’t know you so maybe I’m wrong.
Well, no, actually. 90% of the delegates from each riding voted in favour of the merger, as explained in this article.
Each riding association in the old PC party held a mini-election to determine who would be the delegates to the virtual convention. The merger proponents put up slates of candidates in each riding and won most of those races, hence the 90% final vote, but that is not the same as saying 90% of the party membership was in favour. I’ve not been able to find breakdowns for the membership votes, but I remember some of the local riding associations in my area posted vote counts where the dissenters were in the forty percent range.
Given the lack of data, it’s not possible to say how the vote went overall across the country. I would agree that a majority of the membership agreed with the merger, but I doubt very much that it was as high as 90 % of the membership overall.
Because the fear from the left is that rights will be taken away. Or not approved of quick enough. Since the past 11 years have shown that the Charter does not need to explicitly list all rights (i.e. they can be read in) they can almost be assumed to exist. Which makes any move to restrict a perceived right open to a challenge under the Charter.
The expansion of rights (such as a minimum annual salary, or the right to health care) on the other hand does not seem to require the equivalent judicial examination.
While I’m not convinced the fear from the left is that rights will be taken away, as in the gay marriages it does not exist as of yet. I know 3 courts have allowed it, but that still means 7 or 8 (including Supreme Court of Canada here) haven’t. Nonetheless, good answer.
Considering the amount of hand waving involved, thanks. 
Basically I trust all the parties want to do what is best for the country. Even the Liberals. The issue is one of accountability. The only way to impose accountability on politicians is to fire them when they loose your trust. The Liberals lost mine. The other parties have yet to do that. If the NDP won I’d shrug and see what they do. Chances are it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as some pundits make it out to be. If it was, I’d get rid of them next election 2-5 years later.
Honestly, the country will not up and die simply because the Liberals aren’t running the place.
I’ll take the first crack at trying to predict final seat totals. I’m going to go with:
Liberals-115
Conservatives-114
BQ-51
NDP-28
If anyone is more interested I could break it down by province.
Prediction done with the aid of the Election Prediction Project
So who do you think would form the government then? The Liberals with NDP and BQ support? The Alliance with BQ support? The Liberals with varied support, leading to getting to this all over in about 6 months?
I’m betting on the last one.
Let me preface this by saying that I’ve spent half my life under a Liberal government and have no real world knowledge of minority governments.
Now, I think that Conservatives besides agreeing about decentralization with the Bloc have nothing in common with them, especially on social issues. The only way they’ll be able to survive is if they move far enough to the left where they’ll be in step with the right wing of the Liberals which Martin was on prior to the election call. This will then alienate the right wing of their party. Ultimately, I can’t see a Conservative minority government lasting more than few months even if they survive a non-confidence vote, which I don’t think they will.
A NDP/Liberal/Bloc “coalition” could last for a while in power, I think it would be in the best interests of the NDP and Liberals do accomplish as much as possible while in control. If they let the Conservatives snipe at them for a year or two while they don’t pass any legislation, the next election will be a Conservative majority.
But then again I’ve only taken a first-year course on Canadian politics. So feel free to destroy my assumptions.
Not completely wrong. Everyone has to do that. If you vote Liberal then you are saying that you don’t care about the corruption. If you vote NDP then you don’t care that they have a very poor record, granted on the provincial scene, when it comes to minding the store. If you vote Conservative then you take a chance on them trying to implement disagreeable social policies.
Well, I understand that corruption is inevitabley going to take place. I would just prefer a smart crook who keeps it behind closed doors than a stupid one who doesn’t. So, it doesn’t bother me to vote for corrupt people, just stupid ones (Liberals). And if that crook is saying he will allow me to keep more of my money (Conservatives), why would I want to vote in the ones who say they will take more (NDP).
Yes, it is selfish, but I don’t perceive it being anymore selfish than those people who vote the social issues in support of their particular cause. Me, I’d prefer that everyone had jobs and was able to look after themselves and help each other out rather than extorting money from me through taxes to build fountains in Shawinigan.
Well, it should be saying that those MPs weren’t reflecting the will of their members if they can be that disconnected from their wishes. Maybe they should have run as Liberals in the first place. Are these people holding their noses now that they sit across the house after having opposed them for so long? Otherwise, it looks to me that they were just another form of Liberal under a different flag, but the same non the less for it. In which case they were using the party affiliation of the PC’s to gain power and push the same agenda as the Liberals. Why bother even having another party then?
You’re assuming that all the members of the PC party supported the merger. Some did, some didn’t. The MPs seem to have reflected that split - some supported it and joined the new party, others didn’t, and refused to do so.
Your comments overlook the “Progressive” in the name of the old party. It wasn’t just window-dressing - it was an important element of the party’s identity, at least for some members and MPs. Red Toryism was a strongly entrenched wing of the PCs for decades.
Joe Clark commented in a recent interview that in both his Cabinet and in Mulroney’s Cabinet, the fiscal and economic policy decisions were the easiest for the old PC party, with general agreement on those types of issues. The hard issues that tended to split the Cabinet and the caucus were the social policy issues, like official languages, and now gay rights and same-sex marriage. That conflict over social matters was one of the issues behind the ouster of Joe in 1983, and again with the formation of Reform in the late eighties. It was also one of the main difficulties between a merger of the PC Party and the Alliance. One graphic illustration of this point was Joe Clark, leader of the PCs, agreeing to be grand marshall of the Calgary Gay Pride parade a few years ago. Can you imagine Stockwell Day, who was leader of the Alliance at the time, doing that?
The old PC party was certainly closer to the Liberals on some issues than is the new Conservative party, but that’s not the same as saying they were the same.
Too often, we hear people say that politicians don’t have principles. I would say that the conduct of the MPs who refused to join the new party rebuts that criticism. From their track record, they have a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism and socialy progressive ideas. They don’t find that mix in the new party, and don’t feel it is consistent with their principles to join it. Some chose not to run again, and a couple, like Scot Brison, decided to join the Liberals. In his case, he decided that the new party’s position on gay rights simply wasn’t likely to be acceptable to him.
And I gather from the news reports that a lot of Brison’s old PC constituency association supported him in his decision - which rebuts your suggestion that the MPs who refused to join the new party were out of touch with the membership. Support for the merger was not evenly distributed across the country, with support for the old PC party strongest in the maritimes. Which should Brison have listened to - the party members in his own riding who had sent him to Parliament, or the vote overall across the country? I would think that the idea of grassroots democracy and representing one’s own electors would suggest that he should place more emphasis on what his own constituents thought of the merger.
As for the comment about how the MPs that switched to the Liberals used to say some pretty harsh things about them, well, similar quotes can be dug up about Alliance MPs commenting on PC MPs, and vice-versa. What we’ve seen is a shake-out of the parties, with a clearer ideological divide. The personal comments made by MPs to score political points aren’t as important, overall, as the principles that have been driving the party mergers.
Good points. I was refering to the way the vote went in general as opposed to a specific riding. If we are to assume that leaders in the former PC party, like Joe Clark for instance, speak for not only their constituents, but also for the party as a whole, it seems that they did not in fact reflect the values of their party members as the majority of them voted for the merger. Whether that was 60% or 90%.
As for the emphasis on ‘Progressive’. I don’t want progressive, nor do I want regressive, I want government to focus on making our country competitive and keeping it that way. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms or in their personal lives. If I could find a party like that I’d vote for them. As it is, the Conservatives reflect that feeling for me more than any others. If they plan on trying to pass ‘regressive’ policies in Canada, I’m pretty sure it will fall flat as Canada is very left leaning and won’t stand for it in the long term.