babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I love this Central Canada shit. BC has the the worst ratio of voters to seats and I think has had for maybe forever. No no non non We have to ensure that BC gets fucked so Quebec can have theirs. Why don't we set up a system that allows for equal representation and not one that routinely screws the same part of the country.
Its bad enough that according to our Ottawa elite and most posters on this board that only 7% of the population of BC could become PM but at least we should get to vote for as many MP's as other parts of the country.
Well, krop, as Wilf pointed out, the regional disparities are substantially overshadowed by party disparities. I would rather have PR than a few more Harperites from BC in government.
BC has the highest percentage of NDP members from any part of the country but hey we are all Harperites out here. The national equivalent to BC's seat count is the NDP would have 77 nationwide. When central canada starts electing the same percentage of progressive MP's maybe I'll buy into this central Canadian fear of the evil Harper hordes in the west. BC'ers don't buy the liberal bullshit as much as people in Upper and Lower Canada.
So lets continue to screw BC until we get electoral reform because that is real democracy. All hail the centre of the universe and continued liberal/ conservative prominence.
Kropotkin-- can you link your concern to a specific post because I can't find what you are talking about-- who was saying BC or any province should be screwed or seriously underrepresented?
I recognize that there are a few areas that need to be over represented (Atlantic Canada, and the North) because their populations are so small that even minimal representation will be over representation. However, they don't add up to much. If a population percentage is 23% and the seat count is 22% how is this difference going to actually impact the national voice of the region? We should be able to accommodate those small pop regions without huge problems and the differences should be spread over other provinces.Gross inequities should be fixed.
I am really trying to see where this becomes a central Canada screwing BC though as central Canada is also underrepresented so you won't find your missing seats here. That would be true even if it is popular in some parts to blame central Canada for whatever it is the want to blame it for.
If you mean Reefer's Post I don't think that was targeting BC so much as making a point about PR which is another inequity issue.
But did anyone actually propose for BC not to get more seats?
There you go.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Now this topic is laughable the Conservatives winning a majority as not in their life time especially after the latest controversay party will be lucky to win a minority.
Which controversy? The Jaffer-Guergis scandal is winding down and people are pretty much over it.
The Cons are basically tied with the Liberals, both under 30% in today's poll. The dreams of a Con majority are long gone, and who knows at this point who is even going to win the most number of seats in the next election.
Whatever it is that Harper's selling, it's obvious Canadians are not buying it, and Harper should start looking over his shoulder at Peter MacKay.
Peter MacKay is a red Tory and is disliked by the Conservative base. He also doesn't even speak French. He is not a serious contender to be leader.
People will always remember him for running to the potato patch in Nova Scotia and crying like a baby when Belinda dumped him. Men in particular think he is a wimp.
Augustus, the controversy where Jim Prentice admitted today that his aide had met Rahim Jaffer about a company's proposal for federal government funding in Helena Guergis' office, not in Calgary. Rahim Jaffer was not a registered lobbyist, and his wife, a minister of the Crown, was using her offices to promote the private interests of a family member.
That controversy.
The HST is actually kicking the shit out of the Conservative polling numbers as well, as they are involved up to their eyeballs in this hated tax.
It is Gordon Campbell and Dalton McGuinty who are responsible for that.
Wait, what?
I'm pretty sure I've heard MacKay speak French while watching CPAC
Don't try and shift the blame Augustus. Harper made these HST agreements with BC and Ontario, and now he is paying the price.
Such low polling numbers are unprecedented.
Jack Layton urges Stephen Harper to suspend HST in B.C.http://www.topix.com/ca/vancouver-bc/2010/04/jack-layton-urges-stephen-h...
Well he can read pre-written statements in French, yes. But if you watch Question Period you'll notice that's pretty much all he can do in French. When was the last time you saw him have an extended exchange in French or do an interview in French?
He had a french communications director during the PC leadership race, and I'm pretty sure was doing a fair bit in french then. I'll concede he hasn't spoken much non-statement french lately, but if we see that shift, I think we can conclude he's starting to look down the road again.
Yes he had some French training for the PC leadership race - that was 7 years ago.
But in recent years he has hardly spoken any French, and rarely answers questions in French in the House.
Peter MacKay's attempt to speak Franglais is made fun of in this YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY_G_aVt0Yg
This started out as a story about the things Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis should be ashamed of. It's starting to look like they're not the only ones.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/23/guergis-bernier-and-the-pms-secrets/
The Prime Minister is being very open about all of this. He is asking anyone who has knowledge of Rahim Jaffer's dealings to come forward:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/get-those-j...
According to census data of languages the number of bilingual French/English speakers makes this particular elitist rule quite undemocratic. The rule even in Quebec means only 40% of the population could be a leader. In BC the number drops to only 7% of the population would be eligible to be leader. In Ontario it is better at about 11 or 12%. Hell even in bilingual NB it would only allow about a third of the population to be leader.
But this "rule" is an undeniable political truth.
Actually French emersion has been very popular in both BC and AB, so I'm sure we could find lots of bilingual BCers who could fill the bill. What percentage of BCers actually want to realistically be pm. I bet it is less than 1%.
Unlike your idle speculation I was using Census Canada numbers.
No one is forcing anyone to learn any language but......Canada has 2 official languages. The least we can expect is for our prime minister to speak both of them.
Most Europeans speak a minimum of 2 languages, and often 3 or 4. What's the big deal with learning English and French?
It's immersion.
Not trying to be picky, but it's important to know the difference between the two.
Augustus, it's considered impolite here to point out people's spelling mistakes. Also, it adds nothing to the debate, and makes people think you're a know-it-all.
ottawaobserver, there is nothing wrong with politely pointing out when someone has confused the meaning of a word.
Incidentally, if a person wants to be taken seriously in a discussion, they need to be aware of what terms they are using. Look at the type of credibility problems that people like George Bush and Sarah Palin have because they make those sorts of mistakes.
In the world of political discourse, good spelling, pronunciation and understanding are important. You mentioned to me in another thread that you don't take an argument seriously if someone doesn't provide evidence/proof. In the same way, an argument is taken less seriously when the wrong words or terminology are used.
To answer the question (if it is a question) of the thrread title.
They will see their numbers drop-- they will pull a John A. MacDonald and then while sleeping they will dream. And that will be the only majority they will get with Steven Harper.