Apologies to my flist for repeat content

[mousme]

John Scalzi hits it out of the park.

Also, lest I be guilty of talking more about the American election than the election taking place in my own country, I really hope I'm not the only one scandalized by the fact that Elizabeth May has once again been denied a voice in the national debate because the damn Tories are too chickenshit to face up to the fact that their environmental policies suck like a Hoover on overdrive.

In fact, all THREE major parties are too chickenshit to debate her, it would seem. The Conservatives and the NDP are all saying that, really, the Green Party supports the Liberals, so why bother? Uh, hello? They have their own party! That indicates to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that they might actually have different views on how to run the country. But clearly, that's just me.

The Liberals are being even bigger wusses, by hiding behind Tory skirts. Have you ever seen such bullshit?

Mr. Dion said yesterday his priority is to face off against his Conservative counterpart ahead of the Oct. 14 election.

"I would like her to be there, but I will not participate if Stephen Harper is not there," he said.

Give me a fucking break. This is a small party. They garner about 3% of the vote, if memory serves. Our stupid first-past-the-post system all but guarantees they'll never have a strong voice because they're not one of the Big Two (and occasionally the NDP) and they're not regionally based.

So what gives? Have our political leaders become such damned lame ducks that they cower before a fourth voice in debate?

As forthright said: for shame!

Comments

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I could see the Liberals and NDP having a lot to lose by letting the Greens in; the Conservatives don't attract a lot of environmentalists. In fact, I'm kind of scratching my head as to why the Conservatives aren't pushing to get May onto the stage.

I don't know whether it's the jetlag or not, but this election already has me wanting to curl up under my desk and not come out again...

[mousme.livejournal.com]

No, it's not the jetlag.

The fact that Harper called this election to begin with just about guarantees that I won't vote for his damned party.

Christ. Is it October 15th yet?

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

No... more like "is it November 5th yet" because then the election cycles in BOTH the US and Canada will finally be O-V-E-R. (whether or not the US will actually have a new "leader" is open for debate... remember 2000?)

[mousme.livejournal.com]

At least your election is going to be interesting. Ours just looks like it's going to be painfully embarrassing. >_<

Bleah.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Not to me...

Given how McCain/Palin are behaving, the US election looks potentially more embarassing than the Canadian one.

ANd Harper gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.

C.

[dizietsma.livejournal.com]

and 2004. anyone who thinks the Shrub won that one wasn't paying attention.
and 2008. anyone who thinks Obama stands a chance isn't paying attention.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Gore won in 2000.

Kerry won in 2004.

And Moose and Squirrel will steal the election of 2008 from Obama/Biden.

(Yeah, I share that view, unfortunately.)

C.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

Sadly, no. We still have five weeks of this BS to put up with. My head hurts.

[dizietsma.livejournal.com]

That the conservatives and environmentalism are seen as political opposites is very sad, to be honest. Rural places tend to be full of conservative-leaning voters and those are the very people who need to be most involved in the subject, because they are the ones who have to make the decisions about whether or not to use the wild places responsibly whilst still trying to make a profit in life.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Well, they wouldn't be seen as political opposites if the conservatives didn't insist on treating them as such. :P

[dizietsma.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that alienation treatment goes both ways, and not just in one direction?

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

So, what, the NewConservatives are basically going against what they claim they wanted...

And people are STILL saying they will vote for the NewCons? (I won't call them the Tories given that they are mostly Reform/Alliance people... and Harper's... creepy)

Bloody politics.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

They're moving back towards Toryism, frankly. Reform/Alliance are kind of crawling back into the woodwork until a more opportune time.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Did the Tories prefer a 'set election schedule'?

From my own understanding, Harper and Co have wanted to turn Canada into USA-North. I don't remember the Tories (Mulroney and them) wanting to do that.

Given the food quality mess currently making headlines as well as the whole water quality thing (Walkerton if nothing else)... they're succeeding. Much to my dismay.

C.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I'm not sure, I'd have to check into that. forthright would know, I'm sure.

[karine.livejournal.com]

Harper called the election in a sort of "You can't fire me because I quit!" He didn't want to deal with the crap and wibbling of the Liberal Abstinence party and the threat of every policy proposition getting debated and threatening the government. You can argue that he went against the SPIRIT of his law, but he didn't go against the LETTER of his law.

Besides, the government was going to fall anyways. The biggest problem I see is that all the parties are saying: "They won't compromise and do it my way." They ALL want their way. NONE of them are willing to work with the others. So, crash boom burn splat.

Fixed election dates are FINE in the case of a majority government. They don't work in minorities; the only way they WOULD work is if the concept of non-confidence was disposed of, and if each vote in the house was what decided wether a policy gets adopted, not wether the party that proposed it is fit to govern.

That said, Harper would actually stand to WIN by letting May debate. Aside from his reaction to her supporting the Liberals (and thus, in his words, have two Liberal party speakers at the debate), I don't understand why he won't debate her publicly. I doubt it's chickenshitedness. I think it's more a question that he doesn't take her, or her party, seriously. Perhaps he feels that the 1 MP they have was weaseled in just to get into the debates...

[karine.livejournal.com]

Oh, and, the reason for fixed election dates is so that the choice of when to call an election is no longer to the advantage of the governing party, in the sense of, "Hmm, the polls look good for us, let's call an election now to insure a reelection."

As for the food quality (are you talking about Listeria?), I fail to see how the government is responsible for this. Yes, public service is responsible for quality control but that's not a job for the Party In Power, because the public servants are the same people no matter who's in charge at the top.

There's also the issue of the Feds being blamed for not doing anything to fix what's actually provincial jurisdiction (education and medicine, for example), but that's a discussion for another time.

[jteethy.livejournal.com]

For the food quality, my understanding was that recent legislation has made it so that the manufacturers are now supposed to self-regulate and voluntarily report dips in food quality to public service.