[kEiThZ]

No, but it's his fault for bringing down Paul Martin, knowing that Harper would get his seat... People need to stop wasting their votes on the NDP and Green if they want to kick Harper out

Some of us like to actually express our real opinion at the polls, not practice 2-party politics.

 

[afransen]

Yeah, but you need muli-member constituencies and that's something that I think many would have a problem with. Having one person, let's you hold that individual accountable. The only problem with any single member constituency is that you end up with some of the same issues wrt proportional representation, etc.

In the end the thing that will make the most difference is if party traditions evolved in Canada to be something like the UK, where not every vote in parliament is sacrosanct. Margaret Thatcher had over 40 of her bils defeated in parliament, sometimes by her own MPs. She didn't kick them and call elections right away. Our interpretation of parliamentary democracy is still quite immature and that's the real problem.

Multimember constituencies, while perhaps not great on the local accountability front, is better than no local representation at all, with PR. It's somewhat amazing how many people push for PR. Maybe it's because it's understandable and not 'too complicated' (can be explained in an 8 second soundbyte).

Every-bill-as-confidence-motion is something I've only seen in Harper's government. That said, I would be happier if there was some room on money bills for compromise. It seems silly to throw out a $200 billion budget and call a premature election when a few changes could be made that would make the bill palatable to a majority of the house.

 

[King of Kensington]

No, but it's his fault for bringing down Paul Martin, knowing that Harper would get his seat... People need to stop wasting their votes on the NDP and Green if they want to kick Harper out

Here we go again...Martin engineered his own defeat. He could have kept the Liberal-NDP "alliance" going but after Layton outlined conditions for continued NDP support, Martin turned them down. Martin apparently thought he could a majority government. That plan backfired and of course the Liberals are blaming everyone but themselves. As pointed out, it is this arrogance and belief that they're entitled to votes that contributed to their defeat.

It's interesting how we hear from some quarters that the problem of the NDP is that it spends too much time attacking the Liberals and not enough attacking the Tories. Meanwhile it was the NDP that was the main opposition to Harper in Parliament while the hapless Dion Liberals kept voting for everything the Tories wanted or even more pathetically, abstaining. The NDP campaign so far has been entirely focused on Harper and I've heard more attacks on the NDP from the Liberals than the other way around. It's understandable - the more they sink in the election the more they will desperately cling to the "Jack Layton gave us Stephen Harper" line.

 

[King of Kensington]

Talk about desperate...the Young Liberals are now picketing NDP events. Why are they attacking the NDP when they could be attacking the Conservatives?

 

[Hydrogen]

Because they (the young Liberals) are now evidently fighting for second place.

 

[lordmandeep]

NDP are idiots.

They want to shut down the oil sands to save the environment.



What about the economy you stupid idealistic socialist morons!!!

 

[Brian69]

NDP are idiots.

They want to shut down the oil sands to save the environment.



What about the economy you stupid idealistic socialist morons!!!

Yep, and that's just one of the reasons I'd never vote NDP. One of the others is that I'd be taxed even more than I already am in order to further redistribute my hard-earned dollars. I'm quite happy to the the Left's vote being split right now regardless of the manner in which it is being spread.

 

[cuzzin_elias]

NDP are idiots.

They want to shut down the oil sands to save the environment.

It takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil unconventionally. Not to mention the wasting tons of valuable freshwater it takes to extract and irrepairable ecological damage caused from the tar sands. Shutting them down is the only option.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I completely disagree with John Barber on this one. I think a minority NDP presence in the house is desirable even though I don't believe, generally, in the direction of their policies. I think people who look with envy at our neighbours to the south and their two-party system are mistaken. A two-party system is fundamentally broken in my opinion and I sometimes question if the US even works as a functioning democracy at the national level. Please, no two-party system here in Canada. And please while you are at it someone reverse Peter McKay's horrible mistake and de-unite the right so that their are more, and more palateble choices on the centre-right.

 

[Blovertis]

Whether it's the U.S. or Canadian system, politics rewards those who can compromise and build coalitions. That explains why Harper holds power today and why the Democratic and Republican party coalitions in the U.S. have traded power for generations.

Sure, you can hold steadfast to your precious principles, but chances are you'll be doomed to the margins of power.

 

[Observer Walt]

^ Excellent points. I would also mention this: in a country where there are few parties, the electorate decides who will form the government. We watch TV on election night, and at the end of the night we know who won and who will be Prime Minister, even though it may be a minority. In countries where they have many parties, the election itself is only the first step in forming government. The back-room wheeling and dealing to form coalitions, done out of public sight, is the second step. It's much less open and democratic and more susceptible to abuse.

 

[Hydrogen]

It takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil unconventionally. Not to mention the wasting tons of valuable freshwater it takes to extract and irrepairable ecological damage caused from the tar sands. Shutting them down is the only option.

Think about the first part. If that were true then the oil sands would not be economically feasible.

There are a number of processes used for extracting oil from bitumen deposits, some of which are more energy intensive than others. Not all of these deposits are exactly alike.

As for the water - which is an issue - oil sand production has been allocated something like 1.8% of the Athabasca river flow for use in extraction. Less than one-third of that allocation is actually being used.

Oil sand production puts out something like 3.5% of Canada's total GHG emissions. Big, but no overwhelming.

So why is there no other option but to shut down this type of oil production?

 

[afransen]

There do remain issues, such as the tailing ponds. I'm displeased that, yet again, the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

 

[lordmandeep]

It takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil unconventionally. Not to mention the wasting tons of valuable freshwater it takes to extract and irrepairable ecological damage caused from the tar sands. Shutting them down is the only option.

lets not forget that the oil sands are the only thing saving the economy...

 

[doady]

You have a very simplistic idea of economics.