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.

Quoted from Hawkeye

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.

Quoted from Hawkeye

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.

Stronache ran as a liberal and got elected again.

Yah I didn't condone it when Belinda Carlisle did it and I don't condone Poncha San Van Condeas doing either.  But my opinion was made clear in my last few posts.. don't go into something if you're not ready to stay the path for your elected duration (or have the decency to bow out and make room for someone who is...)
I've heard the guy talk and he honestly beleive (or so he's convinced the public) that he did what was best for hsi constituents but I still think it is a false premise that he got elected under and therefore is no longer the valid candidate.

Whatever, despite my protestations, I'm not bringing it up anywhere but here so clearly while it bothers me I'm not gonna act on that (except to rue the conservatives (and by conservatives I mean mostly Harper) for being dicks ever so slightly more).

  Ok Ok, Ethically speaking he should have stayed as a liberal.  Fine, you win. But I still don't care.  

   Apparently, the Liberal party is looking at filing some kind of parliamentary charges against the guy, saying it was illegal for him to switch while still technically a member of Paul Martin's cabinet.

huh - good for them.  Don't get me wrong I don't like the liberals for much more than they are the only people who can keep Harper in check - if anyone actually can.
But ethics SHOULD be important in politics, especially Canadian politics.. I'm not that naive to expect ethics WILL be there, but they really should at least try to make it LOOK like they are ethical.  Then again maybe I expect far too much from my elected representatives.. whose salaries are paid by my (and our) hard earned dollars!

     Yeah I agree, this switching after the election does little to improve the general public's view of political ethics.  And I thought that Harper ran on accountability.

  Interesting how Paul Martin has dropped off the face of the earth with regard to the liberals.

Yah the best thing the Liberals could do was drop him out.. despite him trying to take the correct path and fix the Liberal's reputation, the other candidates threw him to the wolves and he torn to shreds by the public during the process..
The funny thing (or so I think) is that the Conservatives had a bonus in their pocket because with Martin in charge, there was a fairly right-leaning person heading up the Liberal party.  Things could switch by next election and they could have someone who is less areeing with many of their conservative views...
But whatever, I'm glad Martin is gone, he was always one more reason to note vote Liberal for me...

For all the conservative banter about the corruption of the liberals in power, they have certainly not wasted anytime in semi legal maneuvering.  From defecting parties members, dwindling press access, questional senate appointments to slow removal of womens rights, the conservatives have proven that the party is only capable of taking Canada back into the dark ages of the 1900s.

Unfortunately, looking for great (I''ll admit I would settle for good) leadership amongst the major parties is a sorry sight...Stephen Harper is a Bush a-s-s wipe, Paul Martin proved he was mindless drone pm (Hurray!! he is gone...but look what we get instead: Michael Ignateiff, a bush conservative masking as a liberal and other unimpressive candidates that blur together in their sameness..perhaps there is a faint hope with Bob Rae), Jack Layton is a timid municipal fish drowning in the chaos of federal politics who has been unable to even assert he wants a donut, Elizabeth May seems to be a conservative not eco housewife... who has sniffed lemon easy off one time too many, and Gilles Duceppes with separatist blood coursing through his veins.

Out of all the current leaders I feel that if Gilles Duceppe would be Canada's best hope of charismatic and conscious leadership.   His stage presence is engaging, his socio and econo ideas innovative, yet I question whether or not his past communist ideology would allow him to be bought out by the mere chance of quebec's freedom.

I'm glad to see the opposition parties are finally developing the balls to push back against the conservative nonesense and fluff.  Perhaps, a good leader will emerge yet before the next election is called.

How do you think the quebec election will affect federal politics?