Well this is certainly the festive season. Political leaders taking pot shots as a show of brotherly love. And even the american ambassador to Canada is weighing in on our election. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, as we always try to weigh in on American elections. But, for him to say on the one hand, we have no ballot for canadian elections, and then on the other to have thinly veiled attacks on the prime minster is a bit of a contradiction. It certainly appears that the american administration would like to see a change of canadian government.
Well this is certainly the festive season. Political leaders taking pot shots as a show of brotherly love. And even the american ambassador to Canada is weighing in on our election. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, as we always try to weigh in on American elections. But, for him to say on the one hand, we have no ballot for canadian elections, and then on the other to have thinly veiled attacks on the prime minster is a bit of a contradiction. It certainly appears that the american administration would like to see a change of canadian government.
What did he say? No ballot? What does that mean? Is he saying there's no one worth voting for, or that we have no little pieces of paper to mark an X on?
And why not attack the current prime minister? He's caught either in a lie or a show of incompetence. (Not that others don't lie on a regular basis, but I prefer my leader to at least be good at it!)
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. He said the US government cannot cast a ballot in a Canadian Election. I think this is the first time that I can recall that the US administration is being a little more active with regard to a Canadian election.
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. He said the US government cannot cast a ballot in a Canadian Election. I think this is the first time that I can recall that the US administration is being a little more active with regard to a Canadian election.
Thank goodness the american government can't cast a ballot in the canadian election! I really hate this "We Know Best" attitude, where they think they should hand pick all the world's leaders.
I wonder, if Bush openly endorsed, say, Harper, would that make him a more or less popular candidate?
I have the feeling whomever Bush "supported" would not fair any better for it. Our (Canadian) attitude toward the current american administration is luke warm at best. Of late we have been hyper critical of their moves, and seemingly for good cause. The war in Iraq just tops the list. One thing Chretien did that I applaud was to say to the americans we will join you in iraq, but give us proof. Of course that never happened.
CBC has a series of transcripts online allowing the party leaders individually to answer questions from the public. Here's the one for green party (which wasn't allowed into the televised debates): http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_green.html
Why is it, that we as Canadians just spent $100,000,000+ on a frickin' election only to have them elected officials take a month break! What kind of accountability is that??? I think they only actually sit in office for 8 months out of the year. They have 2 full months of summer break, 1 month of christmas break (on average) and I month for spring break, because you know, those politicians love cruising daytona beach in their speedos.
You want to talk accountability, how about that mofo out west that changed parties less than 24hrs after elected? He campaigned as liberal, won, then immediately switched to conservative. I smell a payoff.
I have no problem with that guy changing sides. It seems to happen more and more. He was honest when asked why? He said that he could do more for his constituants as a cabinet member than as a back bencher on the royal opposition. He may well have campaigned as a conservative liberal in which case going over to the conservatives is not a huge deal.
But when a politician changes parties like this, he is changing what he represents. If I voted in someone from party A and they switch to party B (after they have been voted in) I think there should be some accountability to their constituents, do you? Some people... many people I'd be willing to bet, vote for the party, not the individual. Unless Canada can somehow change the election process so you can vote for a) the party you want and b) the individual you want, I think they should be forced to either resign or stay the path for the duration of their candidacy.
But hey, since when has the anyone in the government been accountable for their actions?
I'm forced to agree with Shabadu. People in Canada tend to vote for the party more often than the individual candidates. True, this guy may be able to do more good for his constituents PERSONALLY by switching, but how many of those voters were thinking of Canada at large when they voted, not just their own neck of the woods? Ie, how many voted liberal with the intent of not giving Harper more power?
Again as I said in another message topic 2 votes are needed. One for party, one for candidate. As for all those who voted liberal to keep harper out in that particular riding, well its a free country there's no legal ramifications and he'll more than likely pay for that move in two years. But seriously, I say the only ones it really affects in this case is his constituants and his campaign staff. In the big picture his little cross the isle dance won't mean much, the conservatives still have to rely on another party to get anything passed.
True in the grand scheme of the entire country this isn't making huge waves of impact, but I still think there *should* be a law preventing you from switching post election. You made you're bed, you should stay in it for the duration.. or flat out quit if you are so upset. I agree it will obviously affect his re-election next time around too.. but what if some giant consiracy was in effect whereby 30 liberal candidates across the country crossed the line and made the conservative government a majority government instead.. or what if even that 1 cross over made the diff? You can't make allowances for an individual unless it is inclusive for everyone (its the Cdn way!).
Ahem... we DID have that *1* crossover make a difference. Just last year. When Belinda Stronache (?) switched sides. What did she run as this time around, anyway?
Interesting... I totally agreed with her actions at the time, and I totally disagree with this guy. Is there much difference between the two, besides which way they swung? I think so. She crossed the floor to give the government a chance. I don't think that's as misrepresentative as campaigning one thing then immediately changing sides.
Same could be said for this guy, he crossed the floor to give the government a chance. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference. Niether party, in my opinion, is any good. What I would have loved to have seen, is that guy going over to the greens.. But fat chance of that.