|
|
Post by Al on Nov 29, 2005 13:12:58 GMT -5
So Canada's getting a new government! Truth be told, I've only been actively following world news for the last few years, but I'm really really interested in this. I know we have a few Canuckles on the board, what are your feelings? Does this happen often? Is Canada known for throwing off the shackles of the oppressors every few years? I'm curious.
Al
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on Nov 29, 2005 15:23:20 GMT -5
I don't know much about it, but apparently this is the first time we got a vote of nonconfidence in Parliament in a long time...a few decades, I believe. That might be wrong, I'm sure someone else can fill in the gaps. I should become more politically aware, because next year I'll be old enough to vote, and I plan to take advantage of that right whenever I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Nov 29, 2005 17:48:35 GMT -5
A More Complete Version of Why Canada's Chucking Out Its Government
By PoolMan
(now would be a good time for a coffee)
About ten years ago, we had a referendum ("Ooh, look Marge, Canada to hold referendum, didn't see that coming!") to debate whether the province of Quebec would stay a part of Canada or try to secede from the nation. The reasoning for which was that English speaking Canada was not treating French speaking Canada as a "distinct society".
The referendum was held, the result was close, but ultimately the secessionists were outvoted. Of course, you can imagine they were thrilled with losing (especially by a narrow margin) so tensions remained high. To try and calm relations and smooth things out, the federal government (then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal Party) created an advertising sponsorship program that would try and demonstrate to Quebec that Canada really wasn't a bunch of Ango-speaking bastards who wanted the French language snuffed out.
The problem, of course, was handing a bunch of highly placed government agents and aides the keys to virtually unchecked and well funded coffers. Corruption secretly ran amok from all appearances, and millions of taxpayer dollars were ultimately squandered. The politicians running the program just went crazy with the spending, giving it to advertising companies that were in the Liberals' pocket, and sometimes just spending it on personal use. Thousand dollar lunches, "official trips" that somehow required entire families going to Hawaii, that kind of thing.
There was a recent inquiry (the Gomery Report) that delved into what exactly happened. Whether you believe it or not, it ultimately found that Paul Martin (who was Finance Minister at the time and is now the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party) was not responsible in any way. Most of the blame was placed on Chretien, who has since retired.
Despite this, the opposition (Stephen Harper's Conservative Party, Jack Leyton's New Democrat Party, and Gilles Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois) have collectively taken advantage of the situation. They have banded their Parliamentary votes together to create a vote of Non Confidence in the leadership of Paul Martin. Because the Liberals are a minority government, with all the opposition united, the vote went against them, and the government officially fell yesterday at 3:30pm PST.
Now we the Canadian Public get to endure a Christmastime election campaign and a January 23rd election to determine who will be Prime Minister. It might remain Paul Martin (which would be laughable considering all that's happened), it might go to the Bush-like Harper. Tough to say at this point... polls are RIGHT down the middle. But there's a long way to go.
Sigh. Canadian politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Nov 29, 2005 18:58:21 GMT -5
I'm sad to say I know zip about Canadian politics, but because you're a parliamentary system, you're not actually voting for PM, right? You vote for the party, and if they get the majority, they pick the PM? And if no one has a majority, coalitions are formed which choose the PM? Or am I totally off-base? I suppose I could go to Wikipedia for this, but why not get educated by a native?
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Nov 29, 2005 21:00:41 GMT -5
My vote will go for Pooly. You'd make a great party and PM all in one! You'd run on a platform that from now on, everyone must speak Portuguese and no other language.
|
|
|
|
Post by dajaymann on Nov 30, 2005 0:23:41 GMT -5
I, for one, welcome our new kilt-clad and portugese-speaking overlords from the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Nov 30, 2005 12:56:33 GMT -5
Well, I am a wild party...
Magill, you're more or less on base with your assessment. You don't actually vote for the PM, you vote for your local Member of Parliament. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the highest number of seats in the House.
Now, I'm off to brush up on my Portuguese!
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 30, 2005 13:41:13 GMT -5
***WARNING, Political Bloviation Ahead!!!****
This is why I approve of a Libertarian government more than a more Socialist one.
I've put alot of thought into this, and my IDEAL government would be a Marxist state-controlled government with a 'benevolent father figure' that would KNOW the correct thing to do for the people of a nation and would do it. Again I state that this is the IDEAL in my opinion. However, it's not realistic, as has been proven in the major communist systems that have existed in the world so far.* All humans have flaws and personal weaknesses, so this father figure really does not exist. There are only two possible solutions to this 1) Split up power into a representative oligarchy with massive control over many aspects of a citizens life (socialism) or 2) Make the size and power of the national government smaller and less powerful.
With both there is a good side and bad side. It is all a question of freedom vs. security, and which you think is more important. A socialist government is theoretically more stable and provides security and protection to the have-nots. More security than freedom. However, with the types of oligarchies such as there is in the Canadian system, there is still alot of money in a small number of hands. And as has been shown, that money could be squandered, which does not benefit the people. The welfare system in America is another example of this failure, as it is quite easy to 'cheat' the system, and some people that do not 'cheat' do not receive adequate protection under it.
The other side is a libertarian government, which is small in size and power. This government would leave to local and state/province governments the daily affairs of the citizen, and would only act to guard the citizens from threats outside the nation, as well as prevent intranational wars between states/provinces. This would be less secure, because there would be no welfare system and the have-nots would not be protected. However, with less power in the few hands and more power in the citizen and local governments to govern themselves in their own fashion, I believe that this is the better solution. It lets people keep what they earn, move themselves up from nothing if they choose by working hard through the capitalist system, and donate to charities of their own free will, which will serve to replace the missing welfare system.
That's where I stand on the line. Not complete chaos of NO government, but a larger chaos with a greater chance for individual freedom and protection from corruption in the government.
*Though with my research into Cuban politics, it seems that Fidel may be the closest thing to a 'benevolent dictator' that could ever exist. Sure, his people are generally poor, and there are numerous state-sponsored executions for speaking against the government, but the people lead relatively safeguarded lives with their physiological needs met, and are well educated.
|
|
