lorem ipsum
Add an image
Add a link
go back to maingo to old version
High-larious!
(Except of course that some might place Harper at least as far left as, say, John Kerry. If the measure is, for example, social issues, Harper still believes "same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions."
And also that left-leaning parties outnumber the Conservatives 3:2 in the new House.
And that that margin is slightly higher when you consider percent of the popular vote.
And that Harper didn't ride into office on a wave of conservatism, or one of "values voters", but rather by selling a tax cut as being for "hardworking Canadians", by vowing to clean up a government whose last parliamentary session was bogged down by scandal, and by letting the Liberals shoot themselves in the foot.
But other than that, I guess she's right...)
Not to say that Harper didn't run a practically clean campaign (if at first you don't succeed...), but it seems at the least difficult and at the most absurd to paint this as a great victory for conservatism in Canada (revolution or otherwise). I can't help but point out that in spite of being handed a governing party with scandal after scandal (HRDC, Gun Registry, "Shawinigate", Sponsorship, Income Trusts...) and a leader who seemed to forget the first four letters of the title (I'm told that 'feckless' is a good descriptor of the former PM) and a campaign that couldn't seem to get the laser-sight off its own foot, the Tories still only managed a minority government consisting of fewer MPs that Martin had to work with last time around.
Perhaps now, with a clean slate, we can see how a minority parliament ought to be run, albeit without a coalition. I can only hope (I seem to do that a lot with Canadian politics) that a minority parliament that does work can open the door to some form of proportional representation.
The seat numbers we've ended up with (with the exception of the NDP and BQ swapping places) are pretty close to a PR result. If this can work, maybe we can be one step closer to that kind of electoral reform...
load more posts . . .
January 24, 2006 -- 4:07 PM
posted by Par
Hahahahahaha. Michelle Malkin (known for her spirited defense of Japanese Internment Camps from World War II) writes about the "CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION IN CANADA":
One wonders what malady Canadian liberals will contract after they lose at the polls in today's election.and
And reader Chris H. in California writes:
"Our losers always tell us they are going to move somewhere like Canada if the voters have the arrogance to elect Republicans. Where do Canadians threaten to go?"
I dunno. Pyongyang?
High-larious!
(Except of course that some might place Harper at least as far left as, say, John Kerry. If the measure is, for example, social issues, Harper still believes "same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions."
And also that left-leaning parties outnumber the Conservatives 3:2 in the new House.
And that that margin is slightly higher when you consider percent of the popular vote.
And that Harper didn't ride into office on a wave of conservatism, or one of "values voters", but rather by selling a tax cut as being for "hardworking Canadians", by vowing to clean up a government whose last parliamentary session was bogged down by scandal, and by letting the Liberals shoot themselves in the foot.
But other than that, I guess she's right...)
Not to say that Harper didn't run a practically clean campaign (if at first you don't succeed...), but it seems at the least difficult and at the most absurd to paint this as a great victory for conservatism in Canada (revolution or otherwise). I can't help but point out that in spite of being handed a governing party with scandal after scandal (HRDC, Gun Registry, "Shawinigate", Sponsorship, Income Trusts...) and a leader who seemed to forget the first four letters of the title (I'm told that 'feckless' is a good descriptor of the former PM) and a campaign that couldn't seem to get the laser-sight off its own foot, the Tories still only managed a minority government consisting of fewer MPs that Martin had to work with last time around.
Perhaps now, with a clean slate, we can see how a minority parliament ought to be run, albeit without a coalition. I can only hope (I seem to do that a lot with Canadian politics) that a minority parliament that does work can open the door to some form of proportional representation.
The seat numbers we've ended up with (with the exception of the NDP and BQ swapping places) are pretty close to a PR result. If this can work, maybe we can be one step closer to that kind of electoral reform...
January 24, 2006 -- 1:15 PM
posted by edo
The whoopers vote as a block... it must be their fault.
January 24, 2006 -- 10:49 AM
posted by Par
That's odd, I didn't see any voters whooping.
January 24, 2006 -- 12:17 AM
posted by Jess
But his minority is so slight . . . I can't see any of the other parties working with him on anything more than on an issue-by-issue basis. But I was also wrong with my "Liberal minority" prediction so we'll see. I don't think any of the parties can afford to have another election for a while so maybe they'll play nice. And one Liberal MP hardly lets us count ourselves as "Redmonton" (federally at least).
I'm sad Linda Duncan lost (32% of the vote to Mr. No-Show's 41%), though not surprised. One of the people from her office called me early January and I said I was probably going to be voting for her and when I hadn't voted as of 7pm I guess they called here, then showed up at my house, then tried to get my Dad to give them my cell phone number. (before you all jump down my throat - I did vote).
Anyone want to guess how long this government will last?
Oh yeah, and a whooping 4% more of eligible voters voted this time (up to 64.9%)
January 23, 2006 -- 10:57 PM
posted by alison
boo, I don't like the look of this
That's right, the ken doll look alike 
has been elected minority government leader. bugger.
stupid blue alberta
We can't even stake claim to "Redmonton" right now
January 23, 2006 -- 10:35 PM
posted by eric
MAD PROPS TO MATT LISSAC
peep his urbandictionary.com listing (oh taylor your checkmate is still there)
BoB Saget link send redefine 86 up, 6 down
The lowest card in a Full House.
I sure got dealt a Bob Saget.
Source: M. Lisac, Feb 7, 2005
YEEEAAAAAAAAA
January 23, 2006 -- 9:19 PM
posted by nobody knows my face
Yeah, Jsese: I say play the game and then come in time to see Akron. You DEFINITELY will not want to miss that. You'll have plenty more chances to see Cadence anyway.
Also: tickets for Moneen and Choke went on sale last week. I should probably get on that.
January 23, 2006 -- 6:22 PM
posted by Al
Speaking about voting...
Squashed like a fast flying, gold coloured bug
Well I lost against Overlord, now it's loser division time! Against some box dude.
January 23, 2006 -- 9:06 AM
posted by edo
Can you clearly cancel out a vote with more than two parties running? I suppose you vote for one of the top two contenders. Plus parties do get money for each vote. And some parties need the cash more than others.
Also for anyone planning to spoil a vote. (Personally I think getting out and spoiling a vote is more legitimate than sitting at home...)
January 22, 2006 -- 10:02 PM
posted by Jess
Beck & Keri - sorry I couldn't come out to help you guys out last night - my Dad was having a thing here that night and I was sort of expected to be around. Hope you like your new place.
load more posts . . .