俾我係哈珀就解散國會賭一鋪

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081201/politics_constituion_081201/20081201?hub=QPeriod

我未住過加拿大,唔熟加拿大國情,小弟亂講唔好見怪。不過,自由黨同新民主黨竟然考慮同魁北克人黨結盟,我完全O晒嘴。

我完全唔知自由黨用的是什麼戰略同兵法,與新民主黨結盟還算了,最膠是怎可能爭取魁人黨聯盟,魁人黨的目的,由頭到尾只得一個,就是將魁北克建立成一個法語國家,甚至回歸法國。魁人黨可不是馬來西亞的回教黨,回教黨最終目標都是建立回教國,但回教黨不是種族黨,回教黨也有華裔黨員,宗教黨是不會分裂國家。但魁人黨與台灣民進黨卻是同類政黨來的,難道自由黨中人以為自己是戴高樂將軍,可以游說國民讓阿爾及利亞獨立而不會被指為賣國賊?

我相信很多加拿大人未想國家一分為二,亦相信大家未必想接受自由黨和新民主黨那些膠味濃郁的左傾主張,若我是哈珀,既然對方出這樣無戰略合理性的一手,就會請求總督解散國會賭一鋪,就讓加拿大公民公投加拿大的前途。我就不相信,哈珀在這一仗會輸。

要清理政局不穩定,就要敢賭一手,天祐加拿大。

10 thoughts on “俾我係哈珀就解散國會賭一鋪

  1. 加拿大的政黨文化,其實是地區為主,魁人黨在魁省勢力極大,但一出到外,即時縮皮,但佢地議會人數卻很多,大到可以左右國會,因此佢地要搵佢地支持。
    而執自由黨同新民主黨則多屬是BC省同安大略省為大票倉。所以佢地分佈其實好獨立地區體制。

  2. 順便補多一句:保守黨同西部黨冇分別,主要靠Alberta、Saskatcheewan呢幾個中西部省份(斷背山省份?)食糊,雖然近年係安省同魁省有d進展,但只係「寸進」,呢兩個省始終對保守黨有戒心(尤其係魁省)

  3. 我呢個加拿大政治的幼稚園學生,想請教一下大家,如果加拿大各黨的地方色彩都重成咁,點解加拿大依家仲未玩到散晒。而自由黨呢步險棋,有乜戰略合理性?

  4. 這可以留意加拿大人的文化就感到佢地雖然地方色彩濃厚,但卻較少激進人士,而且極度愛好和平,有點與世無爭,所以佢地雖然理念不同,但又對分化的理念又沒有太大突出。

    還有一點是魁人黨雖然想搞獨立,但當地的法裔人士其實都深思過,要搞獨立,自己有沒有能力先?在財力同支持都不是真的雄厚,特別是法國佬,其實唔多想架喎。

  5. 小弟也是O晒嘴。班門弄斧一下加拿大政治看法:自由黨長久以來是魁北克省聯邦派(支持魁北克留在加拿大的人)支持的黨派。Longhair兄的描述是1990年代以來是政確的,不過自由黨長期靠山是滿地可一帶聯邦派地區(例如自由黨前總理杜魯多是滿地可人)。另外魁北克聯邦派通常對美國有敵意,反而魁北克分離派對美國不是"解啼"太多,而安大略省是通常是跟美國是"相反意見派"(contratarian)的,小弟保證,萬一南鄰美國奧巴馬左傾思想在生根的話,安大略省是會走回1950年代或甚至以前的保守方向的,以便同美國永遠區分。自由黨可是看見安大略省票倉會不保,自保才會與魁北克人黨結盟。

  6. 其實加拿大"極度愛好和平,有點與世無爭"的和平主義思想是加拿大一整代人經歷自由黨政府,尤其是杜魯多長期執政時期(1968-1984)的社會工程"改造"的產物。1964年之前,加拿大可是極度保守兼且有長久的軍事光榮傳統,祖國(英國)一有需要,立即出錢出兵。有兩個因數使加拿大變為和平主義:大英帝國煙消魂散,美國變為影響世界頭號國家。

    加拿大一路都恐懼加入鄰邦美國,當代社會主義在美國一路都是叫座不及其他所有西方國家,加拿大以便同美國區分,所以擁抱社會主義。但是奧巴馬當選美國總統後,產生變數:你無論點左傾都好,冇可能左個奧巴馬的(奧巴馬的政見是跟杜魯多差不多左),加拿大要再同美國區分,只能走右/保守路線。Things are getting interesting…

    後話:誠言,加拿大人"進步派"很多,但是保守派也是很多,兼且是極度保守那一隻。在美國很多的保守派人士本身是加拿大人,例如David Frum,Mark Steyn,Charles Krauthammer等,被列根更右太多。加拿大本身有David Warren,也是西方世界保守派一名大將。

  7. This is a commentary by Mark Steyn on Canada’s current situation:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODFiNWRkOTdiMjMxMzM0YmExZmIyNDZmNjI5ZmM2ZWQ=

    Tuesday, December 02, 2008

    Small Earthquake in Canada? [Mark Steyn]

    The difference between the US system and a parliamentary democracy is that, in the latter, events can turn on a dime (as Mrs Thatcher discovered in 1990). In Canada, in October, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party was returned to office – not with a majority in the House of Commons but nevertheless with an increased minority. By contrast, Canada’s formerly “natural governing party”, the Liberals, got their lowest percentage of the vote since 1867, shriveling away to their Toronto heartland with a few redoubts in the Maritimes and the Yukon. Stephane Dion, an unpopular eco-obsessive with an ascetic mien and poor English presiding over an impoverished party trying to sell the nation an unwanted “Green Shift”, immediately announced his resignation as leader, and it seemed the Tories would have the luxury of watching the Loyal Opposition tearing itself apart all winter electing his replacement.

    Now, a mere six weeks later, what David Frum calls “the Harper government”* is about to fall, and the fellow set to replace him as Prime Minister is the October flopperoo Dion, reborn as leader of a freakshow coalition of Canada’s three opposition parties – the soft left, the hard left and the separatist left, all of whom have figured out that what they have in common (unbounded love of big government) is bigger than what divides them. Which is true. Quebec separatism is mostly one almighty bluff, a giant racket by which the francophone minority screws out of English Canada a hugely disproportionate share of the spoils. The Bloc Quebecois are separatists who have no interest in separating: no matter how wide you open the stable door, the flea-bitten old nag refuses to bolt. Granted all that, it’s weird to see the Liberals, until recently the most electorally successful party in the western world, reduced to climbing into bed with separatists and socialists.

    How this will all play out I haven’t a clue. There are those who say Harper’s a genius to allow himself to be temporarily dethroned in glum economic times by two unpopular Quebeckers (M Dion and the separatist Gilles Duceppe) who’ll get stuck with the blame for everything that goes wrong. Maybe. But Quebeckers are to Canada what the Sunni were to Saddam’s Iraq: For 40 years they’ve been in charge, except for the very briefest of intervals. And once they’re in getting them out usually proves tricky. This photograph, showing the two wily francophones sealing the deal with the socialist moustache “Taliban Jack” Layton (on the left) may confirm western Canucks’ suspicions that Canada is a de facto colony of Quebec. Meanwhile, I like the game of trying to find a name for this coalition of the alleged talents: Canada’s Natural Governing Separatist Party, New Libs on the Bloc, etc.

    It is, of course, a disaster for that small band of Canadians interested in small government, non-confiscatory taxation, and freedom from nanny-state tyrannies like the “human rights” commissions. But the idea that, in half the time it takes Washington to accomplish the elephantine transition from one administration to the next, a government can be elected, demolished and replaced is not without a certain grim appeal.

    (*I’m a constitutional pedant: It’s Her Majesty’s Government, but Mr Harper’s ministry.)

  8. Canadians voted for a Conservatives-led government seven weeks ago, with Stephen Harper as its leader and thus, our prime minister. Now, because of backroom deals that entails who-knows-what, Stephane Dion, who was abandoned by most Canadians and even his own party, wants to become our prime minister. Worse yet, he would then be followed by someone else who Canadians have no right to choose unless they are delegates within the Liberal Party. When did Canadians give their right to choose a government to the hands to such an exclusive group? If a coalition government composed of the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc wants a mandate, it must gain it through a general election, not through backroom deals that may betray the well-being of most Canadians. The reason why so many people from around the world decide to make Canada their home is because of its democracy, not because of corrupted backroom deals that run rampant in the infra-structure of the government – many Canadians have known those things far too well already.

  9. 伊斯蘭恐怖分子很聽話.
    京奧勝利閉幕前一年內,無郁,以免大佬百年一遇的慶典有波折;
    B.侯賽因.奧巴馬未贏前,也無郁,以免”反恐”成競選議題,壞了催美國”社會主義”化的大計.

    美國的左派 useful idiots 也很聽話.
    克林頓的”八萬五”,奧巴馬的ACORN,民主黨的”兩房”(Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac)再加紐時為首的癞蛤魔傳媒大鳴大放,搞出一個所謂”金融海嘯”,逼到全世界都懷疑資本主義的功能,個個盼望大政府來搭救.

    加國前自由黨魁克理田(女婿中信董事)及馬田(師傅史特朗是中共”顧問”),還不乘熱打鐵搞政變把”拒共”的保守黨政府轟下台.
    歐美全部左派當權,那左王之王的 One World One Dream 就真正實現了.

  10. >>martinoei 黃世澤
    December 2, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    我呢個加拿大政治的幼稚園學生,想請教一下大家,如果加拿大各黨的地方色彩都重成咁,點解加拿大依家仲未玩到散晒。而自由黨呢步險棋,有乜戰略合理性?

    Here’s why: Harper in the name of “dealing with economic crisis” proposed to cut funding of political parties, which in effect will starve off the opposition since none them have the same financial muscle as the Conservatives now. Harper 打狗入窮巷 , so he himself is to blame for the formation of the coalition.

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *