[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38055336]Well Chretien prorogued parliament 4 times while he was PM, I can't recall the media backlash there, and Dalton has done it here as he resigns. Again, the Tories aren't some huge anti-democracy factory, if anything the numerous bullcrap calls for a new election resulting from phony reports of robocalls in over 200 ridings (I could believe a few, even 10, but over 200? That's a load of crap) caused by opponents of the government to try and force them out through the courts, and the one Liberal in Etobicoke Centre who is trying to sue the Tories out because he's angry he lost, and then he's trying to sue his own methodology as undemocratic so that he'll be the only one able to do it, are examples of something fighting the democratic ways actively, by trying to overturn an election through the courts simply because they didn't like the outcome. While the robocalls reports are not likely linked to the Liberals directly, it's very likely their supporters or those of the NDP, in the over 200 ridings making the claims because they don't want Harper in power, the Etobicoke Centre case is actually an example of a former Liberal MP deliberately trying to undermine democracy though the courts and then using the courts to try and ensure he's the only one who'll ever be able to do it.
Calling an election is up to the Governor General, and can only be caused by the request of the PM, or by losing a confidence motion. Harper had neither happen at the time of the coalition talk, and they didn't want an election, they wanted to simply take power from him. The Governor General had the sense to tell them no. Harper also cannot block an election from being called, unless such is done by defeating a confidence motion. Also, the status of the "strength" of a party does not determine of an election will be democratic, as such a judgment is subjective. Democracy is about having the right to vote, if indeed the Liberals were a "weak party" at the time that does not stop people from being able to vote for them.
He didn't wait to call the election until the opponents were "at their weakest," and arguably it was when the NDP were at their best, his party was defeated on a confidence motion after they were found in contempt of parliament, he did not call the election, it was called on him.
I honestly get tired of senseless bashing like this, Harper is not some undemocratic dictator and the other parties are not angels in this scenario, the opposition has done and does do the exact same things he does. He has policies you disagree with, yes, he has some I disagree with too, I happen to disagree with the Liberals more, and the NDP even more, but I don't by and large call the whole party evil communist dictators, and I only bring up the examples of their "undemocratic," which can be a very subjective term, policies or practices when in an argument like this one to prove they're no better than the Tories. If you want to hate on Harper, hate on him for something he's actually done out of the ordinary, not a commonplace practice you didn't like him doing. If you disagree with the practice, blame the system, not the result of that system.
[editline]15th October 2012[/editline]
And transparency is a problem with all parties, it's why McGuinty's government is going down, it's why there's a large corruption investigation going on in Quebec, it's why the cost of the F-35s keep going up, and it's why the Sponsorship Scandal was a scandal, because all of these were covered up initially. Again, transparency problems are not a partisan thing, every party is opaque on issues, like the Liberals on the true costs of Gun Control when they implemented it in 1995, or the Tories on the costs of the F-35s. And on claims made with very little factual base, again, not a Tory-exclusive thing. To use the example again of Gun Control, it was a purely emotional law that the Liberals enacted, they had absolutely no factual basis to it and all their supporting arguments were emotional nonsense. Parties make laws based on emotion more than fact all the time, and again that's not a purely partisan thing.[/QUOTE]
Fair point.
Allow me instead to say that I personally prefer a government which doesn't lean towards a trickle-down model of economics that decreases the size of the middle class and further separates the rich and the poor. I do not think that conservative fiscal policies are sustainable in an economy which isn't truly capitalist - Where's the competition? In the end, conservative fiscal policies - Those that advocate tax cuts and deregulation for corporations - seem a poorly-veiled attempt to legitimize the perpetuation of a rich elite - And ensure their power remains intact.
The so-called 'Liberal' party are conservative now in their economic policies, and the Conservatives are even worse, to say nothing of their regressive social views.
Conservatives also favor a punitive rather than a rehabilitative justice system - A perspective that seems more indicative of an intellectual deficiency or a lack of understanding of the way the world works.
The NDP was a sane option when Layton was alive, but now, I really don't know.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
I'm going to put forth the argument that Conservative social and economic policy perpetuates and increases the rate of crime and the number of individuals being criminally prosecuted, through the act of corporate deregulation and the dissolution of social security.
Again, with regressive social views, the Tories haven't touched gay marriage, and while Harper hasn't stopped the "definition of a person" debate, he's stated that he's concerned about it affecting his government's promise to not touch abortion.
As for the economy, I prefer a government who encourages business growth, leading to more jobs, even if they are somewhat lower-paying, than one that attempts to impose an overly expensive welfare state and attempt to fund it by taxing large businesses into oblivion, causing a loss of jobs and a movement of capital south of the border. There's a fine line to be played with economics and the social aspects thereof, and while Harper may not be doing that great on the social side of it with any sorts of welfare, I believe if the Grits had gotten in for either Dion or Iggy, we'd have hit a near depression, costs of living due to carbon taxes would have gone up significantly, and businesses would have left the country due to a hostile environment for either them or their owners.
I'd support the Liberals a bit more now if they weren't so hostile towards gun owners, and the NDP I think are spendthrifts and control freaks who have no sense of the value of a dollar.
What I think is really wrong is there are some places the government needs to create competition through regulating the market, like gas, or the internet; a duopoly between Bell and Rogers in Ontario, Bell and Shaw out west, and Bell and I don't know out east. There are some sectors that have been allowed to become complacent in a mon/duopoly scenario, and we need competition to keep prices down, in an opoly there is no real competition. The examples of this with the Internet are what really pisses me off, that's another topic I could likely lecture on for about 2 hours at least, if I was so motivated and allowed.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;38055653]I'm going to put forth the argument that Conservative social and economic policy perpetuates and increases the rate of crime and the number of individuals being criminally prosecuted, through the act of corporate deregulation and the dissolution of social security.[/QUOTE]
As for this, crime rates have been going down since the '70s, fairly steadily I may add, it's just crime is sensationalized so much we think it's on the rise. The issue is we're in a tough economic time, and some things have to be cut to balance the budget. Social securities are one of those things, and while it's regrettable, I'd rather have a stable economy that, upon recovering is able to offer those securities again, than have those securities acting as an economic drain, plunging us further into recession. As for corporate "deregulation," I believe that's been beneficial for job growth and opportunities in Canada, to help keep our unemployment rate down and help us though the recession. I believe that while Harper's policies have been controversial due to the perception that they harm the poor, I believe that had anyone else gotten into power, not only would I not have been able to be introduced to and practice one of my favourite hobbies (though that's besides the point), I believe we would have ended up farther into the recession than we did, possibly ending up in a scenario like Europe is in now, asking for desperate bailouts to ensure our economy is able to avoid collapse.
[QUOTE=archangel125;38053537]The Canadian Liberal party is swinging pretty far right, almost as bad as the Conservatives now. Their name is pretty much a misnomer.[/QUOTE]
That's like in Norway where as of late the party "left" is right of the party "right". :v:
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38055745]<Rebuttal>[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have a rebuttal of my own to that - But maybe tomorrow. It's late, I got classes early, and I'm exhausted.
I'm disappointed that all The Sun can come up with is calling him McQuitty. That isn't even a good pun.
I would've thought they'd have a great one prepared for this day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
