OT: Canadian Federal Election

[TerranC]

Hi, I was just wondering about a recent quote from the leader of the "Bloc" about how he was going to put issues regarding Quebec first. Isn't that kind of selfish?

Yup.

Are there importand issues in Quebec that need to be addressed above other national matters?

Not really IMHO, they just need a bunch of money for lots of things just like every other province, but the bloc argues that since a majority of Quebecers speak French (and have, in turn a "distinct" society), that Quebec should be special and get better treatment by the federal government than other provinces.

I was just reading about that "Bloc" leader guy. A ex militant Marxist? Oh great! Don't be adding any hammer and sickle to that red maple leaf!

Don't worry; should he get his way, you won't be seeing a People's Republic of Canada; instead, you'll be seeing a People's Republic of Quebec.

[ June 29, 2004, 21:28: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Thanks, just wanted to get an opinion on that. I do care what happens in Canada. I go there quite a bit and would hate to see anything interfere with their standard of living or happiness...or the continued construction of underground shopping malls.


Vancouver has a "Skytrain" underground; hey who knew!

[Grandpa Kim]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
How would you distribute the seats around the country??

Simple:

1. Have all candidates run at large. So 5000 candidates up for 310 slots. Top 310 win those slots... and represent no one part of the country more than another.

2. Candidates (again at large) must produce a verifiable petition with 100,000 names on it to gain a seat. If you can get 1,000,000 names, you gain 10 seats... and 10 votes in the house!

The beauty of the Last one is you represent those 100,000 citizens wholeheartedly! No disgruntled voters who voted for the other guy!

These ideas are not new by a long shot, but as this election has proven, the electorate hates change. They prefer the bad old ways to taking a chance. These electoral ideas are just way too big a change.

[BlackRose]

Well only 60% of the elegible voters voted, OR there were more people who DID NOT vote than voted for the Liberals.

[ June 30, 2004, 02:46: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

[Renegade 13]

Well, if this minority gov't doesn't Last long (which it probably won't...) next time I should be able to vote! As long as the election is after April 27, 2005, I'll be giving the Conservatives one more vote.

[Suicide Junkie]

I failed to see any convincing reason to vote for liberal, conservative or even NDP.

What in particular do you see in them?

[BlackRose]

Same thing happened to me, initially I endevoured to discover which party I hated the least. I still thought is was imperative that I voted but it wasnt about which party I liked, I didnt even consider the Greens a party.

Then I heard about the 1.75 a vote thing so I figured i'd at least check out their party's platform.

Glad I did.

Still I'd like to hear what Renegade 13 likes/dislikes about the Conservative platform. Or any party's platform for that matter? As I said before I WAS going to vote for the Conservatives but changed my mind. Admitedlly it had a lot to do with what the Greens offered, compared platform to platform I did prefer the Greens largly. BUT these were the issues that really bothered me with the conservatives:

Harper's Control over his party: More than any other party the Conservatives broke ranks and made inflamitory statements seemingly against what the party was standing for, regarding Military, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage. If he couldnt control them durig the Election how could he control them after?

Conservative Policy: They still hadnt held their Policy Convention so really Harper was running on an UNAPPROVED platform that may have been revised or turned aside. I dont blame Harper for that, it's more Martin's fault as he called the election to beat down the Conservatives (not giving Harper enough time to call the convention). In the end I still could leave that to chance.

In no way do I agree with sending Canadian Troops to fight in Iraq. I dont mind supporting the UN or helping in Peace Keeping etc. In the begining I bought the line about supporting existing Canadian troops, but as time went on it became painfully obvious that we would have been involved in combat over their if we had been under a Conservative Government. I just cant get my head around that and agree with it.

I really am not comfortable with a lot of the personal views held by Harpers chosen MP's. I can name several from BC how almost frighten me. I spoke to my local Conservative MP and I got the same gist, he was quite aquard about ansering questions about going to Iraq, Abortion and Same Sex Marriage. It made him uncomfortable and in turn made me more uncomfortable watching him squirm around the answers trying to find a diplomatic response.

I do agree with the reformation/refunding of the military but I dont like what the Conservatives are proposing to do with that funding. I was far more comfortable with the Green view on that.

I dont mind their view on health care (Chiropractic, Naturalpaths, Ancupuncture, Family Doctors) are all examples of private health care (but you dont pay).

I like the Idea of scrapping the Registry, the only old line party that wants to do that (but so do the greens).

I DID trust his economic views and I honestly believe he would have held to that budget, but I'd rather an econimist like Harper have that affect on government spending and then taking the balance and using it for other things than what Harper's Conservatives want. (Again, I know I keep plugging them!) See the Green economic platform.

[ June 30, 2004, 04:25: Message edited by: BlackRose ]