How To Prevent Majority Harper Regime II

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
How To Prevent Majority Harper Regime II

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
Fidel

[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+gains+advantage+with+Libya+parti... gains advantage with Libya participation: experts[/url]

Quote:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to use Canadian military jets to help secure a Libya no-fly zone has given him the opportunity to stand prominently on the world stage as the “leader of the people,” an image the other parties must counteract if they hope to be successful in a looming federal election, political experts say.

Fearless leader of vast moose pasture with oil and a few homeless polar bears gains upper hand by toadying to vicious empire.

olivertwisto

Isn't there some irony in you telling people how to vote, in order to "save democracy"?

 

Yeah, I thought so.

 

Personally, I see a Con majority in 2011. Not because they are a strong party, or that people love them, but because folk are still pissed off at 12 years of Lieberal rule, and the partisan bickering that forced the last unnessecary election. The disenfranchised haven't forgotten yet, and will punish the opposition accordingly. Unless their election aims are to produce a record for the lowest voter turnout EVER, I think the opposition parties are destined to failure.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

It's always about punishing your inferiors for your lot, ain't it?

BTW, how long do you have to be in power to become "enfranchised"?

Sean in Ottawa

Actually I think Harper may be defeated this time.

nussy

The media is starting to cast doubts about Jack Laytons health. Can it bring more votes to the Liberals? That non confidence vote tomorow is a huge setback to Harper. 

Sean in Ottawa

Actually, it will hurt the Cons. Absolutely puts the lie to the "they are just opportunistic" theme. That will help all the opposition parties but perhaps the NDP more than the others.

I think this will be personally difficult for Layton but I don't expect that to hurt campaign results.

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Layton+will+campaign+pain/4493653/...

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.albertadiary.ca/2011/03/future-of-ndp-and-canada-real-west.ht... Western Alienation play a role in bringing Harper close to a majority?[/url]

Quote:
If the New Democratic Party had chosen Dave Barrett as federal leader in 1989, they’d be the Official Opposition in Ottawa today.

More important, it is said here that if the NDP had selected Mr. Barrett over Audrey McLaughlin, Stephen Harper would have never been prime minister and the Reconstituted Reform Party of Canada or whatever it’s called would not be on the verge of forming a majority government.

...

Mr. Barrett had the right instincts about what would appeal to Western Canadian voters and would be good for Canada. That is why he opposed the Meech Lake Accord and could give only half-hearted support, which he later concluded had been an error, to the Charlottetown Accord.

...

It was Preston Manning and the Reform Party that took advantage of the legitimate constitutional concerns of Westerners. Many voters who personally supported far more progressive economic and social policies than the divisive hard-right Reform Party stood for, held their noses and voted Reform as if it were a course of chemotherapy to cure the country’s potentially fatal constitutional ills.

Why do you think so many Western Canadian New Democrats voted “counter-intuitively” for the Reform Party?

This is what gave Mr. Harper his beachhead, after which came the millions in corporate dollars that aim to make it a permanent occupation despite the well-known progressive proclivities of voters across this land.

...

To be blunt, the NDP needs to give up its pan-Canadian pipedream, which will never amount to a hill of beans at least until the NDP can become the Opposition, and to recognize the harsh truth about the first-past-the-post system that was so effectively exploited by Mr. Manning.

The NDP needs a strong leader from Western Canada, and a social democratic platform written with Western Canada’s needs and dreams in mind.

Ciabatta2

The Cons engineered this election - because they know that this one will result in their majority.  They only need 11 seats

The Conservative incumbents that aren't running again are not in competitive ridings - but the Liberal/NDP incumbents not running again sure are.  During the last election the Cons were closer in more races than any other party.  More conservative-minded Liberal voters will move to the Cons thanks to the coalition 'scare' and due to dislike of Iggy, while with Dion and the green Shift gone more liberal-minded-but-not-truly-NDP floater voters will shimmy back to the Libs in just-enough numbers to squeak the Cons to the tiniest of majorities.

All they need to do is win three seats in BC, one in Alberta, five in Ontario and two out east.  Nevermind what happens in Québec.

This one is in the can.

Aristotleded24

Ciabatta2 wrote:
All they need to do is win three seats in BC, one in Alberta, five in Ontario and two out east.  Nevermind what happens in Québec.

Are you assuming Harper holds his seats in Quebec? If he loses those, he will have to win more.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@aristotleded24:

Even if no one else comments, I think you are bang on. It was a crucial moment for the NDP and the membership failed. We've been living with all of its effects since then. Davey Barrett got it; it is a shame we don't have someone like him in charge now.

Just a great comment and thanks for making it!

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Aristotleded24

Arthur, I have long held the position even going back to the last election that after a Bloc rout of Quebec, the key to stopping a Harper majority lies in the NDP taking away Conservative seats in Western Canada. The Liberals are increasingly bleeding seats to the Conservatives in Ontario and look to do so again, while most NDP gains in Ontario and Quebec, as nice as seat gains are, come at the expense of the Liberals which only solidifies Harper's hold. When I saw the Conservatives with a commanding lead in Western Canada last go around, that was enough to concern me about a possible Harper majority, regardless of how polls looked in the rest of the country.

janfromthebruce

Actually there are at least 3 seats in Ontario that I can think of, off the top of my head, that are conservative and the NDP is gunning for so, nay, you don't know what you don't know. Of course, when Libs campaign in say Sask., in a seat lost by a NDPer by less than a 100 votes, you than wonder about whether you really think the NDP should not consider those seats that are close and held by liberals who really completely agree with Harper policies mostly. If you want a progressive govt focus, one votes NDP, full stop.

KenS

Ciabatta2 wrote:

The Cons engineered this election - because they know that this one will result in their majority. 

No.

They enginered it because:

[1] At the time they had a crack at a majority.

[2] By putting the HST deal with Quebec on hold [with the BS there wasnt time to work it out], they have a very strong ace for staying in government after the election given what they knew even in more optimistic times for them was the most likely outcome of the coming election: status quo and another plurality. That ace on top of other cards for staving off defeat of their government after the election.

[3] Icing on the cake: an election in which you are unlikely to lose the reigns of government is a good thing even if all you get is status quo. Because another election where the Liberals dont 'win'- get into government- is another blow to their shaky organizational and financial standing.

That crack at a majority they had was predicated on dominating the framing of the campaign with their ballot question of the economy. The economy being #1 ballot question is probably still going to happen. But to get a majority they needed that to be the only real ballot question. And that much has already slipped out of their grasp,

Given the losses in Quebec that were virtually guaranteed even in a very good campaign for them, the issues dogging them means they will now be doing very well to recoup those losses in Quebec with gains elesewhere.

Lens Solution

KenS wrote:

Given the losses in Quebec that were virtually guaranteed even in a very good campaign for them, the issues dogging them means they will now be doing very well to recoup those losses in Quebec with gains elesewhere.

But are the Cons "guaranteed" to lose seats in Quebec?  They certainly could lose a few, but most commentators I'm hearing seem to think that if they do lose some in Quebec, it will only be 2 or 3.  They aren't at risk of losing all of them.

Aristotleded24

janfromthebruce wrote:
Actually there are at least 3 seats in Ontario that I can think of, off the top of my head, that are conservative and the NDP is gunning for so, nay, you don't know what you don't know. Of course, when Libs campaign in say Sask., in a seat lost by a NDPer by less than a 100 votes, you than wonder about whether you really think the NDP should not consider those seats that are close and held by liberals who really completely agree with Harper policies mostly. If you want a progressive govt focus, one votes NDP, full stop.

Would those 3 be Kenora, Oshawa, and Huron-Bruce?

I would certainly love to see the NDP break new ground and win in Ontario, but the point is that there is a much stronger NDP voting tradition out West than in Ontario, so you would expect that a party would want to, first and foremost, do well in the regions it has traditionally done well. Canada only narrowly escaped a Harper majority last time because of Quebec. Recent by-elections have seen Liberal seats go Conservative, and I have no reason to think that trend won't continue, so to counter that, the NDP has to win seats at the expense of the Conservatives. By far, the region of the country where that is likely to happen in the largest numbers is Western Canada.

What I wanted to highlight is that the Conservatives became a force nationally because they had a strong start in Western Canada and were able to branch out from there. Had the NDP not lost its populist ground to the Reform/Alliance in Western Canada, Reform would not have grown as strong as it is. That is the central point of Climenhaga's article.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Lens Solution wrote:

But are the Cons "guaranteed" to lose seats in Quebec?  They certainly could lose a few, but most commentators I'm hearing seem to think that if they do lose some in Quebec, it will only be 2 or 3.  They aren't at risk of losing all of them.

Not all, but most are at risk. They'll be lucky to hold more than 2 or 3. The Harpercrits have lost double digits in the polls in Quebec - in some polls, they're trailing the NDP.

Lens Solution

I would love to see the Cons lose that many seats in Quebec, but if they only keep 2 or 3, that would mean losing 8 or 9 of the 11 they have.  Which 8 or 9 do you predict they will lose?

Here's my take:

 

IN TROUBLE?

Sylvie Boucher (Beauport-Limilou) only won by 4 points in 2008, vulnerable to arena controversy

Denis Lebel (Roberval-Lac St. Jean) only won by 4 points in 2008

Bernard Génereux (Montmagny-L'islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-Du-Loup) only won by-election by 5 points in 2009

Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint Charles) won by 11 points in 2008, vulnerable to arena controversy

 

POSSIBLY VULNERABLE

Josee Verner (Louis St-Laurent)  won by 20 points in 2008, but facing heat over arena controversy

Lawrence Canon (Pontiac) only won 32% of the vote in 2008, but may win again because of vote-splitting

 

PROBABLY SECURE

Jacques Gourde (Lotbiniere-Chutes-de-la-Chaudiere) won by 23 points in 2008

Steven Blaney (Levis-Bellechasse) won by 20 points in 2008

Christian Paradis (Megantic-L'Erable) won by 19 points in 2008

Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere-Alma) won by 15 points in 2008

 

SAFE

Maxime Bernier (Beauce) obviously seems to be safe based on his personal popularity in a riding he won with 62% of the vote in 2008.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CTV: New Ipsos-Reid poll has Tories in majority territory at 43%.

Lens Solution

They're discussing it right now on Power & Politics.  Could someone please e-mail Evan Solomon and tell him Ipsos-Reid always has a pro-Conservative bias in their polls?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I've been going back and forth between CBC and CTV - heard someone say Harper will probably step down if he gets another minority, because he hates being in a minority - even though he governs as if he had a majority.

Lens Solution

Boom Boom wrote:

I've been going back and forth between CBC and CTV - heard someone say Harper will probably step down if he gets another minority, because he hates being in a minority - even though he governs as if he had a majority.

I'm not so sure about that.  He's a power-mad control freak.  Lawrence Martin wrote a column this month saying Harper will not step down if he gets another minority.

Aristotleded24

Wouldn't that cause problems within the Conservative Party? If the Conservatives fail to win a majority even after 3 elections with him as leader (4 if you count 2004) and a clear tactical advantage, wouldn't that mean he failed to win for the Conservatives?

Lens Solution

Harper maintains an iron grip on the party.  Many Conservative M.P.'s are terrified of him.  If you disagree with him in any way, you are thrown out.  (eg. Garth Turner, Bill Casey etc.)  Other former Con M.P.'s are on record such as Inky Mark as to how horrible he can be.  And today Helena Geurgis told Evan Solomon that  when you are a Con MP you basically can't even speak without the PM's permission.  She said that is one thing that makes her happy about being an Independent - she no longer has to ask permission to speak.

olivertwisto

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Not all, but most are at risk. They'll be lucky to hold more than 2 or 3. The Harpercrits have lost double digits in the polls in Quebec - in some polls, they're trailing the NDP.

 

And it's always about the name-calling with you lot, isn't it? I find it amusing that you have seen fit to lump me in with the "Harpercrites". For the record, I am socially Liberal, and fiscally Conservative. As such, the current government doens't exactly suit me, particularly with the latest round of big-brother-esque bills that have been tabled. Nonetheless, I know that if the Lieberals return to power, my rights will be further infringed upon and my pockets further stripped. 

 

Much more realistic than the dreamworld you live in, no?

thanks

- re: Jack Layton's health- he's survived and stronger. illness does that: puts you beyond petty games, and helps you focus on priorities.

- people in the West know about cooperation.  and differences within a federation. they also perhaps could be reminded that people in Quebec were on this land hundreds of years before they were, and First Nations people were here at least eleven to fourteen thousand years earlier, to have some respect. 'sovereignty' needs more clear definition- the term G. Duceppe repeated the other day on radio.  i'd have to read up on use of the term, maybe others could help. It seems to convey self-determination and perhaps it would be useful to outline areas that are of concern specifically- so far Duceppe has only been asking for what BC and Ontario already have (HST) , not necessarily 'separation' as in 'tearing the country apart' which is the rhetoric that Harper spouted last election.

-re: 'dislike of Iggy'- again it would be helpful, and i'm thinking about coalition again (still looking for a good definition there), if it is clear what exactly different parties are agreeing to, and how decisions are made.  Why couldn't Jack Layton lead a coalition? Does it depend on number of existing seats in parliament?  more important though are the policy consensus items.  there was a list last time, which would be useful to review. 

- "Many Conservative M.P.'s are terrified of him." This is a very sad state of democracy.

- Canadians don't necessarily think bombing of Libya is a good thing.  We're tired of hearing of more war and violence.  NATO is becoming more of a problem than the problems it pretends to 'solve.'  Instigating violence.  Gaddafi's 'bombs' were like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. non-existent.

-  a coalition agreement with clear parameters would provide more accountability in government, and certainly show more respect for parliament.

 

thanks

- re: Jack Layton's health- he's survived and stronger. illness does that: puts you beyond petty games, and helps you focus on priorities.

- people in the West know about cooperation.  and differences within a federation. they also perhaps could be reminded that people in Quebec were on this land hundreds of years before they were, and First Nations people were here at least eleven to fourteen thousand years earlier, to have some respect. 'sovereignty' needs more clear definition- the term G. Duceppe repeated the other day on radio.  i'd have to read up on use of the term, maybe others could help. It seems to convey self-determination and perhaps it would be useful to outline areas that are of concern specifically- so far Duceppe has only been asking for what BC and Ontario already have (HST) , not necessarily 'separation' as in 'tearing the country apart' which is the rhetoric that Harper spouted last election.

- many in the west understand that languages of origin are important to different cultures, it seems that somehow legitimate concerns of Quebecers and others to retain their languages was manipulated to pit east against west.  westerners have always been included in surveys which show strong support for universal healthcare, and farmers have shown support for the wheat board, despite Harper's attempt to destroy it.  there is shared irritation with corporate/banking control of rail and with foreign ownership.. when the specifics are named in a coalition agreement, Harper cannot engage in fear-mongering about what coalition participants might or might not do.  Clear strong support is essential for workers in their transition from oilpatch jobs: vision and steps for the economy including employment in infrastructure and services, EI and training.

-re: 'dislike of Iggy'- again it would be helpful, and i'm thinking about coalition again (still looking for a good definition there), if it is clear what exactly different parties are agreeing to, and how decisions are made.  Why couldn't Jack Layton lead a coalition? Does it depend on number of existing seats in parliament?  more important though are the policy consensus items.  there was a list last time, which would be useful to review. 

- it would be helpful if pundits reminded the public that polls reflect the pollsters.

- "Many Conservative M.P.'s are terrified of him." This is a very sad state of democracy.

- Canadians don't necessarily think bombing of Libya is a good thing.  We're tired of hearing of more war and violence.  NATO is becoming more of a problem than the problems it pretends to 'solve.'  Instigating violence.  Gaddafi's 'bombs' were like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. non-existent.

-  a coalition agreement with clear parameters would provide more accountability in government, and certainly show more respect for parliament.

 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

What I wanted to highlight is that the Conservatives became a force nationally because they had a strong start in Western Canada and were able to branch out from there. Had the NDP not lost its populist ground to the Reform/Alliance in Western Canada, Reform would not have grown as strong as it is. That is the central point of Climenhaga's article.

Out here in the West the NDP has got to get back to its pre-1993 populist roots, especially now that the Conservatives are foregoing their Reform era populism. The NDP has never recovered out here in the West from Reform's success at taking over the NDP's position as the West's federal populist party. The NDP should read and learn from the Manning/Harper Reform playbook and start arguing for populist initiatives like voters rights and provincial equality. Manning won a lot of seats here in the West fighting for the little guy. Supporting policies like recall, initiative, provincial equality, and free votes in Parliament helped Reform go from zero to 60 (seats) within one election cycle. Manning's message that MP's should represent their constituents instead of their parties was a game changer out here in the West.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

olivertwisto wrote:

And it's always about the name-calling with you lot, isn't it? I find it amusing that you have seen fit to lump me in with the "Harpercrites". For the record, I am socially Liberal, and fiscally Conservative. As such, the current government doens't exactly suit me, particularly with the latest round of big-brother-esque bills that have been tabled. Nonetheless, I know that if the Lieberals return to power, my rights will be further infringed upon and my pockets further stripped. 

 

Socially Liberal (so you talk left, walk right?) and fiscally Conservative (into huge deficits and tax cuts, but only for foreign corporations and the very filthiest of the rich)?

BTW, if you check back you'll find I did not label you a Harpercrit, but you've earned the title since with your hypocrisy about name-calling. "Lieberal"?

Is that the best you've got?

 

ilha formosa

Is getting out the vote, any vote, the key to preventing a Con majority? The staunch Con vote is like a sandbar in a body of water, when the water level goes down, it shows up as the highest thing around. Maybe it's time to get the water level up?

How will the election do against hockey playoffs and images of CF-18s in Libya?

A media point: Everytime the topic of Libya comes up, talk about the "coalition" Canada is participating in.

ilha formosa

Could anyone provide a list of vulnerable Con-held ridings, and ridings Cons are close to winning?

Progressives should consider picking one of these ridings to volunteer for, even if they don't live and vote there. I once lived in a solidly Con riding, so I put my energies into volunteering for a strong opposition candidate in an adjacent riding.

Quote:
The Harper Conservative Top Guns can be defeated in the next election if anti-Harper voters in swing ridings can effectively use their votes. In some ridings that means defeating a Conservative. In other ridings it means trying to prevent a Con from succeeding. The key to Canadian elections is at the local level -- 308 separate election races where success or failure is sometimes decided by a relative handful of votes (e.g. 17 votes in Kitchener-Waterloo).

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gary-shaul/2011/03/election-all-hands-de...

takeitslowly

lets prevent proverty and misery and hopelessness among Canadians instead because most canadians dont care about which leader is going to win or party politics..my 2 cents.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
What I wanted to highlight is that the Conservatives became a force nationally because they had a strong start in Western Canada and were able to branch out from there. Had the NDP not lost its populist ground to the Reform/Alliance in Western Canada, Reform would not have grown as strong as it is. That is the central point of Climenhaga's article.

Out here in the West the NDP has got to get back to its pre-1993 populist roots, especially now that the Conservatives are foregoing their Reform era populism. The NDP has never recovered out here in the West from Reform's success at taking over the NDP's position as the West's federal populist party. The NDP should read and learn from the Manning/Harper Reform playbook and start arguing for populist initiatives like voters rights and provincial equality. Manning won a lot of seats here in the West fighting for the little guy. Supporting policies like recall, initiative, provincial equality, and free votes in Parliament helped Reform go from zero to 60 (seats) within one election cycle. Manning's message that MP's should represent their constituents instead of their parties was a game changer out here in the West.

It also wouldn't hurt to remind voters where each party stood on the issues of the GST and the HST over the last 20 years, and how the party positions changed over time.

Although I did read somewhere on these boards that the Tory vote on the Prairies is starting to decline, so the NDP may already be there.

ilha formosa

takeitslowly wrote:

lets prevent proverty and misery and hopelessness among Canadians instead because most canadians dont care about which leader is going to win or party politics..my 2 cents.

I can understand this sentiment, but there is a huge disconnect in the statement above. What is the root of the poverty, misery and hopelessness? Don't you think the state has a role to play in addressing these problems?

Lens Solution

ilha formosa wrote:

Is getting out the vote, any vote, the key to preventing a Con majority?

I would say yes.  Unfortunately there seem to be about a 30% solid block of Conservative voters that always show up.  The voters for some of the other parties are less committed, particularly the Liberals in recent elections, and to some extent the NDP.  There was a poll a few weeks ago that showed the Cons have committed voters, whereas the Liberals and NDP have ones that are less committed.  Turn-out is very important.  The one smart thing Elizabeth May has said this year is that Harper is trying to turn people so off politics that only Conservative voters show up - thus giving him a majority.

If the opposite parties do not get their vote out, they will be in big trouble in this election.

Shurna Elson

Why now?  The country is doing comparatively well, the jobs are coming back, we are involved in 2 wars, we have a deficit. $300 million could just as easily been spent next year. I like Jack L but I am not sure of his health. The nitpicking and squabbling of the last few months has just made me think they are just looking for something to complain about rather than working to improve this country. Elections are very expensive, also the business of governing comes to a stop. None of the complaints I have heard or seen lately seems that important. I am disappointed with all of the parties.  I definitely do not want a coalition gov't which included Gills D. Ducette has made it very clear that he does not give a Damn about Canada, only The Nation of Quebec. I wonder who in government puts Canada first.

JKR

Shurna Elson wrote:
Why now?

If we had a sane system we wouldn't need an election. Since the majority of the members of parliament don't have confidence in the Prime Minister, they should be able to select another member amongst themselves to replace him without having to have another election. Unfortunately, that's not how our antiquated two-party system works, when a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons more then 6 or so months after an election, an election has to be called.

By not cooperating with the majority of MP's and out and out lying to them and hiding facts from them, and sabotaging parliament, the majority of MP's had no choice but to hold Harper's government in contempt of Parliament and to vote non-confidence in his corrupt government.

Harper's government will go down as the first government in Canadian history, after 143 years, to be held in contempt of Parliament. It took 143 years for Canada to have such an awful government.

In a sane system MP's would now be choosing a new Prime Minister from amongst their members. A person who could work cooperatively with others and not bully others to maintain power at any costs.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I prefer Duceppe to Harper any day.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Shurna Elson wrote:

I definitely do not want a coalition gov't which included Gills D. Ducette has made it very clear that he does not give a Damn about Canada, only The Nation of Quebec.

Clearly you have never taken the time to listen to Mr. Duceppe. He is one of the most impressive politicians in Ottawa.

Does he care about Quebec more than Canada? Certainly, but I prefer his attitude over that of Mr. Harper, who considers Canada not second in importance, but in his own words: "second-rate".

D V

I am surprised at the number of you who feel that Harper & co engineered the situation. With the NYT running another article on the leader of the 2nd party here & The Globe pouring it on, it seems pretty clear which side the financial etc elite have been on since the run-up to Obama. I have a feeling that we might even see some well-timed Zaccardelli-like bombshell(s) in the middle of the campaign (this time anti-Con), although Canada being what it is, might not even take (as if there is not plenty enough on the record to condemn the Cons for any thinking person). Finally enough $ for Libs and sense of boldness with the backing they have (with the "left CIA" running things for now) seem to me to be behind the timing of this likely election, which, barring bombshell(s) taking or something drastic, I expect to result in not much overall change.

As ex-GPC-er, though, I pay attention to the effect on that party's innards, if they remake themselves after whatever result, maybe there is room again for me among them.  And I can't let go of the need to add to what I have said re the issue horse I have been riding vigourously since I quit the GPC, here again re Layton's health: as his prostate problem was surely from cell phone radiation, so for his hip, newswebsearch for recent news on 'hip' 'cell phone' 'bone', lots comes up. Only the GPC would have any chance of distinguishing themselves by speaking to this travesty, but even they aren't capable as it is.

 

thanks

Harper's budget pours money into the nuclear  industry, which is carcinogenic at every level of mining, processing, transportation, storage, and use, not to speak of major accidents, as well as being unconscionably expensive. Indigenous peoples and local residents whose lands have been destroyed by uranium mining have long been opposed. Like residents in Ukraine, where Chernobyl was forced upon them, people have not been provided with good alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

Alternatives are available. In contrast to George Monbiot's apparent support for nukes, as reported on CBC radio, the CCPA Monitor of February carried an article by Jess Worth from the New Internationalist stating, in reference to the work of the Centre for Alternative Technology, "they have come up with a blueprint for how an industrialized nation  like Britain can reduce its net emissions to zero by 2030...The report demonstrates that a more efficient, less consumer-focussed economy can be powered entirely by renewables and sustainable biomass.  No need at all for fossil fuels, nuclear power, technofixes,or geo-engineering."

Opposition parties need to demonstrate substantial commitment to public clean energy, rather than the huge subsidies which Harper's budget gives oil, gas, and nuclear corporations. Harper has done only minor tinkering for public relations.  His Conservatives are not conservative of our energy resources nor ecosystem health.

thanks

- petty tactics to gain 'populist' support disrespect voters and undermine the necessary dialogue needed to make changes that will be upheld by the citizenry for the long term, changes which will actually improve economy and ecology.

-it's a pretty stunning statement that Harper's is the first govt in 143 years to be held in contempt of Parliament.

- not sure Shurna E. read my notes.

- proportional representation should be a key part of any opposition party platform or coalition agreement

 

 

D V

thanks brings up the nuclear thing, again only the greens, if capable and did not have in Canada so many engineering-inclined pro-nuclearites among them, would go after this, maybe Eliz. will do so in SGI -- vs. Lunn at the heart of the Keen affair, and at the centre were emergency pumps, wasn't it, just like at the centre now in Japan...

Captain Janeway

I am so afraid These fools are going to give Harper a majority.

God help us all

Lens Solution

Why did the Committee decide not to vote Bev Oda in contempt before today's vote of non-confidence?  This means she has escaped.

Lens Solution

did Pat Martin vote against the motion?

takeitslowly

ilha formosa wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

lets prevent proverty and misery and hopelessness among Canadians instead because most canadians dont care about which leader is going to win or party politics..my 2 cents.

I can understand this sentiment, but there is a huge disconnect in the statement above. What is the root of the poverty, misery and hopelessness? Don't you think the state has a role to play in addressing these problems?

 

yes, but i dont see any reason why the job situation would improve with or without a harper majority. It would not make much differences, if at all..party politics is all very fun and dramatic and all for those interested in debating about political history and party history and have no immediate worries.

god helps us all if we have another election about how scary harper is, instead of how scary the world already is for most people who are already left out of the system and barely surviving. (and you dont have to be a really poor senior or physically disabled or a student or a newcomer to fall into that categories)

NorthReport

Actually the Cons filibustered the Committee yesterday. There was some talk of it for today but for whatever reason it went by the wayside.  

Aristotleded24

takeitslowly wrote:
god helps us all if we have another election about how scary harper is, instead of how scary the world already is for most people who are already left out of the system and barely surviving. (and you dont have to be a really poor senior or physically disabled or a student or a newcomer to fall into that categories)

True, and that's exactly what this election should be fought on.

takeitslowly

so far, all the parties including the NDP have said nothing about people who are underemployed or unemployed, I dont give a fuck about retirement or pension or guarantee low income supplements or second career or post secondary student tutions, I know the senior and baby boomer vote is crucial, but it seems thats the only thing the parties dont give a shit about is those who are 25 - 35 single poor people and childless. Thats why I WONT FUCKING VOTE unless i have a reason to. no more. Fuck the system.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

takeitslowly wrote:

so far, all the parties including the NDP have said nothing about people who are underemployed or unemployed, I dont give a fuck about retirement or pension or guarantee low income supplements or second career or post secondary student tutions, I know the senior and baby boomer vote is crucial, but it seems thats the only thing the parties dont give a shit about is those who are 25 - 35 single poor people and childless. Thats why I WONT FUCKING VOTE unless i have a reason to. no more. Fuck the system.

I can well understand your feelings of rage and frustration, but not voting would be an error. It is exactly what Harper and the Cons are counting on, that the people who are being harmed most by their policies will not vote, while those who support them will vote. That should make you angry enough to vote against them, and for some other party that you think might do better if given the chance.

Pages

Topic locked