[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070615" target="_blank">Savage Tactics</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> June 15, 2007

Prime Minister Harper\'s proposed budget is causing some ill-will amongst politicians from Canada\'s Maritime provinces. The reasons why are complex and boring, but basically Harper is slightly cutting back the federal handouts that part of the country has historically thrived upon. <br> <br>But anyhow, the dissent is growing. Bill Casey, a Nova Scotia MP from the Conservative Party voted against Harper\'s budget last week. It wasn\'t even the final budget vote, but rather just a procedural motion about bringing the thing to the next phase of parliamentary review. Regardless, in response, Mr. Casey was expelled from the party, which is generally what happens to MPs who defy the wishes of the party leader in this insane country. \"He knew the consequences of his action,\" said Conservative Whip Jay Hill, in a line that sums up everything that is wrong with our system of government. <br> <br>If the US operated under such a system one reckons the Republican Party would basically consist of John McCain at this point.

[Pitchfork]

The money to Quebec goes up, so the money to the Maritimes goes down.....gotta balance out somewhere.........

[Psudo]

John McCain hardly represents the mainstream Republican view. I'd think it'd be some New England or Virginia Republican.

[Scape]

The Atlantic Accord is hardly the same as the federal transfer program. It was brought in 1985 under Brian Mulroney. The rescinded changes would claw back in the billions so that is hardly slight. Last, Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay gave his word in the House of Commons that MP's could vote their conscious. Why is the word of a senior MP so glibly ignored?

[Kjorteo]

Wait, if we're implying that only the ones who toe the line of the President would survive, then I'm pretty sure it'd just be people like Tom DeLay. (And yes, I know DeLay himself isn't around anymore. That's why I said people like him.)

Anyway, this is kind of an irrelevant aside, but I just want to take a moment to praise J.J. for not being nakedly partisan with his cartoons. I've been following Filibuster Cartoons for a while, and most of the early run tore into Chretien and Martin. Obviously, there weren't a lot of high-ranking conservatives to lampoon under their respective reigns, but still, there was some room for doubt whether J.J. was making it a point to go after whoever was in charge, or making it a point to go after the Liberals. I mean, you never know, he could have turned into a cheerleader when the Conservatives took over.

However, cartoons like this prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he didn't. He has no double standards, and Harper isn't safe either, and that just...really impresses me. You don't see willingness to go after everyone very often these days. So awesome points for that.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Wait, if we're implying that only the ones who toe the line of the President would survive, then I'm pretty sure it'd just be people like Tom DeLay.

Well, I meant toe the line of the party. Even the President doesn't do that. Even so, though, Tom DeLay is probably a good example.

Kjorteo wrote:

[J.J.] could have turned into a cheerleader when the Conservatives took over. However, cartoons like this prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he didn't. He has no double standards

Total agreement from me.

[JJ]

I was trying to make more of an analogy to the current political climate in the US, in which John McCain seems to be the only high-profile GOPer who is consistantly pro-Bush on the two biggest debates- Iraq and immigration. Though I do agree, in the historical context he would have been purged long ago if Canada-style rules were in effect.

Also, thanks for the praise. Honestly, I was hoping Harper would be different from Chretien-Martin, but it seems most of the complaints about the latters can just as easily be applied to the former. We have a low standard of political leadership in this country.

[ejacksonian]

JJ wrote:

I was trying to make more of an analogy to the current political climate in the US, in which John McCain seems to be the only high-profile GOPer who is consistantly pro-Bush on the two biggest debates- Iraq and immigration. Though I do agree, in the historical context he would have been purged long ago if Canada-style rules were in effect.

Also, thanks for the praise. Honestly, I was hoping Harper would be different from Chretien-Martin, but it seems most of the complaints about the latters can just as easily be applied to the former. We have a low standard of political leadership in this country.

A better comparison would be Tom Delay. Tom Dely was known as "the Hammer", who would get votes if he wanted to do it. Defying Delay had consequences too-not necessarily kicking your party out, but rather making your life as miserable as hell in the House.

In contrast, Martin, Chretien, and Harper looked mild mannered. They may kick people out, but they wouldn't do what Delay did (and still get away with it).

[Psudo]

J.J., is this you wishing for US-style weak and informal party loyalty in hopes of changing Canada's "low standard of political leadership", then?

[JJ]

Well one can certainly be a leader without being a tyrant. A good leader rules with good ideas, which win followers and support. A tyrant just maintains his rule with force and coercion.

We've had a lot of effective tyrants in Canada, but good political leaders, I would say no.

[DerbyX]

JJ wrote:

Well one can certainly be a leader without being a tyrant. A good leader rules with good ideas, which win followers and support. A tyrant just maintains his rule with force and coercion.

We've had a lot of effective tyrants in Canada, but good political leaders, I would say no.

What tyrants have we had? Have not all PMs been subject to the same laws governing elections?

Its not as if one of them took control in a military coup.

Canada has had alot of good leaders. We wouldn't have such a great country otherwise.

[Calbeck]

DerbyX wrote:

What tyrants have we had? Have not all PMs been subject to the same laws governing elections?

Its not as if one of them took control in a military coup.

There's been plenty of tyrants elected throughout history in accordance with the law. Most even continued to obey the law even as they acted tyrannically.

[Quantum_Wizard]

DerbyX wrote:

What tyrants have we had? Have not all PMs been subject to the same laws governing elections?

Its not as if one of them took control in a military coup.

I don't think JJ meant that they were literally tyrants, but merely that they have acted more autocratically than what is conductive for good governance.

[sasquatch2]

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

What tyrants have we had? Have not all PMs been subject to the same laws governing elections?

Its not as if one of them took control in a military coup.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussulini did not come to power as a result of a military coup but by using the political system current then and there.

He who ignores history is damned to repeat it.

[JJ]

DerbyX wrote:

JJ wrote:

Well one can certainly be a leader without being a tyrant. A good leader rules with good ideas, which win followers and support. A tyrant just maintains his rule with force and coercion.

We've had a lot of effective tyrants in Canada, but good political leaders, I would say no.

What tyrants have we had? Have not all PMs been subject to the same laws governing elections?

You mean the law that says the Prime Minister gets to choose the friggin day of his own election? That's a pretty tyrannical power in itself. Regardless, there needs to be way more checks on the day-to-day powers of the PM. An election once every four years or so does not make for a truly vibrant democracy automatically. The years inbetween are often just as crucial.