I’ve never understood the claim that American politics are more interesting than ours. My guess is it only seems that way. The outcomes of U.S. political battles don’t immediately or directly impact Canadians’ daily lives, so the stakes for Canadians are not as high. That makes it easier for some Canadians to find the enjoyment factor they believe is missing in our own politics.
Watching another country’s politics is like rubbernecking at a car wreck. The crash is fascinating if you’re involved in it, but the entertainment value is higher if you’re merely a drive-by observer, if your car and limbs are not part of the mess.
I have never believed our politics are a poor second in providing fascination. Just look at the changes that have occurred over the summer, and the reactions to them.
In at least one major poll — conducted last week for EKOS Research Associates — the Tories and Liberals are now tied at roughly 29 per cent of voters each.
[More]
Gunter may be right in his assessment that canadian politics is interesting. My facination with politics in the USA is that there are more individuals in play and even tho they talk about parties allowing “free” votes brings in a whole new demention. the political season is much longer and the pundits all seem better informed.
Re: #1 — “Gunter may be right in his assessment that Canadian politics is interesting.”.
He’s not. Canadian politics is BORING and that is because we as a country are stuck on stupid.
By continuing to deny Harper a majority we deny him the power to take away “Bloc goody-switches” and therefore we continue a parliamentary stalemate which has gone on for decades and in truth should never have existed in the first place had we been alert. This problem should have been forseen and dealt with in Kim Campbell’s day but it wasn’t — “sorta” like the problem the Americans now find themselves in. The big difference between them and us is that they are doing something about it — immediately — and therefore American politics is fascinating at this time.
If Canada ever wakes up the stalemate will be broken but reading Canadian news everyday I am not the least bit hopeful. Take away the Bloc’s public financing and we will destroy the separatist movement in Quebec. That is what Harper is trying to tell us but every-time he mentions it lefty “no minds” go ballistic. That would be Taber and crowd.
Do you want to change Canadian politics and make it exciting again? Authorize Harper to take away their taxpayer money in the next election by electing conservatives. Duceppe and crowd will be gone — things will go back to normal — and Canada will be full of happy campers.
The bottom line: If the Bloc, Liberals and NDP are that good (as they keep telling us they are) they don’t need taxpayers to support them. They will do just fine on their own.
“You can take it to the bank (LOL).”
Jack is right about the election funding of the Bloc. Let’s end it ASAP and if Canadians don’t back PMSH on it, then we truly are a progressive country that deserves to go the way of all failed states.
Isn’t it odd how the progressive have us trapped into propping up failure? Here’s a quick list of failure that we prop up which would adapt itself to new realties if we stopped:
- Funding the Bloc
- Funding despots in the ME instead of drilling and building nuclear plants here at home
- Funding the anachronism of our First Nations as a parallel society mostly failing.
Canadian politics are tiresome lately, but our lamestream media contribute their fair share to the tedium. The only thing possibly more boring than actually filling out mandatory governmental forms is having our MSM drone on and on and on about government data collection for months on end. Still, Canadian politics at their best are like watching spoiled children argue over who among them deserves the biggest annual slice of entitlement pie. We need to grow up and start figuring out how to bake bigger pies already.
I read in the “media” that the conservatives have dropped 6 to 11 points in the polls. Meanwhile, Mr. Graves never polled the Conservatives above 6 points above the Lieberals. It is Mr. Graves who keeps spotting the Lieberals. I believe he had the Green party at 13%! I’ll wait for some other polls.
The poll drop could be caused by Canadians not understanding what Harper really stands for like his flip flop on taxing income trusts and his apparent flip flop on the gun registry.
Interesting article ‘before he was against it, he was for it’
http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2010/09/unloaded-principles-harper-voted-for.html
Who does he think he is, a liberal?
During the 2004 and 2006 election Mr. Harper’s platform included getting rid of the LGR. Of course, it’s OK for Lieberals to change their minds–they only do what the voter wants!!!! Iggy’s party voted twice on a private member’s bill to get rid of the LGR but, now they’ve changed their minds. Please note the history of the private members’ bills was to allow MP’s to vote freely–Iggy changes his mind
Actually UV, you are wrong about that as is your source. Bill-C68 the Firearms Act passed after its third and final reading took place on June 13 1995, and not as your source has indicated on June 12 1995 which was only its second reading. Harper was voting as his constituents directed him to, and he managed to convince them to change their minds and allow him to vote NO to Bill C68 during its final reading.
Harper’s vote against Bill-C68 recorded under the Nays from the Hansard dated June 13, 1995
http://tinyurl.com/28dtdkp
This is what Harper himself later had to say about it:
“There is an important issue here. We, as elected Members of Parliament, go to Ottawa to represent the wishes of our constituents. Our party has always stood for that basic grassroots principle since it was first written into the Blue Book. For the record, I did represent my constituents’ wishes and vote for Bill C-68 at second reading. What Mr. Day failed to mention is that I then worked hard to explain to my constituents why that piece of legislation was flawed. And at third reading – the one that matters because it makes a bill a law – my constituents gave me a mandate to oppose the bill. I voted No to Bill C-68.”
I don’t have a problem with MPs voting as their constituents direct them to and irregardless, in 1995 the MPs who did vote the long gun registry into existence were being told by the Liberal government it would cost $2 million in total startup funding and then pay for itself, so it would not be flip flopping for any of them to change their minds and later vote against the gun registry after it became an ineffective, $1 billion and growing, money pit, it is rather just using common sense to stop throwing good money after bad.
Re #8, is it even reasonable to believe that the police would throw away perfectly good information about who is stockpiling weapons? The cost of implementation is worthy of scrutiny but other than that there has been way too much harping on this gun registry issues. It has not physically changed any gun-owner’s life.
Regardless, if Harper really wanted to scrap the registry, he would have put it to a vote on threat of calling an election, just as he did with every legislation he was SERIOUS about.
We are in debt and in need of a smaller federal government, that means cutting out whatever is useless, and the long gun registry serves no purpose. What police officer is even for a moment going to let anyone’s life, especially their own, depend on the efficiency of government bureaucrats? Those who have been made criminals and treated as such for forgetting to renew or record changes would probably disagree about it affecting their lives and realistically, how long before the database once again becomes obsolete and another $100 million or so in updates are needed? If Police Chiefs really want to keep the long gun registry going for political purposes, let them pay for its upkeep out of their own departmental budgets, and see if they don’t soon pull a flip flop on it.
Brian, Harper said himself the long-gun registry would be helpful and only cited three concerns with the bill that prevented him from voting on it on the third reading, this is in Hansard and quoted on my blog.
June 12 1995 was the debate of the third reading and June 13 was the vote. You were wrong in suggesting I had erred.
That is quite possible, the Hansard is difficult to follow, (also Harper’s statement indicates that the third reading is the one that mattered, so I took him to mean it happened on June 13, 1995 when Bill-C68 was actually passed), but regardless my point to UV was that Harper voted against Bill C-68 when it counted, and I don’t have any problem with him having had back and forth discussions with his constituents about it beforehand.
Harper agreed to the principles and general terms of the long-gun and he never said he changed his mind. He says he didn’t vote for it on the third reading because of three concerns. Well those three concerns about penalties and costs don’t exist anymore so unless he flip-flopped and somehow now realizes what he thought in principle was a good policy he is an opportunist and just after your vote.
No, you are wrong, as all bills do, Bill-C68 had several elements to it beyond the long gun registry, including several amendments that were being voted up and down on at the time of the readings. Go back and read your link, Harper did not state that he himself supported Bill-C68 but rather that while a survey of his constituents found strong support for some elements of the bill, and broad support for the general principles of the bill, very severe concerns about specific matters remained, leading to 60 per cent overall disapproval of the bill among his constituents. Also, moments before Harper stated that there might possibly be some elements of Bill-C68 that could be helpful, he had already expressed his intention to vote against the bill unless several amendments were made. They were not. Even the worst bills can have elements to them that are not completely without merit. So what? It is the finalized bill that matters, the one that Harper voted against.
Further, that was before the Liberals turned the long gun registry into an ongoing fiscal disaster area. Government initiatives that may have seemed to have some merit when first advertised at $2 million and no further costs, lose that merit long before the actual costs reach $2 Billion, and only the most naive among us, completely ignorant of the ongoing costs of IT solutions, would believe that they will stop there. Costs may be kept down for a short while, but hardware wears out, and software releases are phased out as they become obsolete every decade or so, and then the IT costs will begin to go up once again to pay for replacements and system upgrades. Also, the penalties are still in place, they are just not currently being enforced because of an amnesty set to expire on May 16, 2011.