Canadian Politics Thread

How do you think this will affect the NDP's chances in AB, where they kicked off the campaign?

The comments posted to the Edmonton Sun's 'editorial' about this were pretty funny though.

Great link, btw. Really surprised to see this one speck of bright orange for Edm-St Albert:

http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l442/acrobins/neighbourmap.jpg

so what do we think about Harper banning facebook unsavories from his rallies (or whatever it was)?
incredibly, incredibly stupid on the conservative's part imho.

article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ejections-at-campaign-rallies-a-staff-issue-harper-says/article1971383/

two girls for having friended Ignatieff on FB - and a veteran volunteer for... um - giving a shit about vetrans i guess.

Seems pretty hard to defend and it was done pretty clumsily. From what people are telling me, though, it's pretty normal for parties to micro-manage who gets to attend campaign rallies. They're generally meant to be photo ops for party faithful, I guess?

This is amusingly weak though: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/conservatives-try-to-explain-student-ejections-from-rallies.html

That is sooo weak ...

On one hand, I don't really care who they exclude from their rallies. They're not town hall meetings so they can let in whoever they want. OTOH, they're screening people's fb pages??? What the hell??

I don't know if the other parties do that sort of thing, but no matter how big a fan I was of some politician, if the vetting process involved someone examining my fb page before I'd be allowed to attend a rally, I'd just as soon stay home.

OTOH, they're screening people's fb pages??? What the hell??

I reacted in basically the same way on a different message board and got these responses:

As opposed to what? That sounds like a better guide of whether someone from the opposing camp is crashing your party than "That guy looks like a Liberal!"

The whole practice lends itself to abuses. Picking on whether they should be using Facebook or not seems almost besides the point....

...
You kinda entering Shades of gray here. It is ok [for the Liberals] to kick me out because they have seen me door knock for the NDP it isn't ok to kick someone else out because they only saw them supporting the other party on facebook?

It should be all or none.

Those actually seem like fair points to me. Facebook profiles are public, for better or worse.

From what I hear, it's common in some fields for employers to check out the Facebook profiles of job applicants.

Sure, if you're applying for a job then it's reasonable. But to attend a one hour political rally, one time? Seems excessive, not to mention a waste of time and resources for the campaign staff.

Oh, yeah, totally.

Not certain, but I don't think it'll make much difference. Tory supporters will obv be against it and leftists will prb support it. I guess the only questionable group here are the Liberals Layton hopes to pull over to his side, but unless they don't think Iggy's plan for more regulation goes far enough I don't think they'll swap sides over Layton's proposal.

I basically agree, which is why it seemed like a curious move for Layton if he hopes, as he claimed, to "paint [Edmonton] orange". When "Tory supporters" = the whole province except one riding, you need to reach out to them a little if you want them to switch to your side.

to the FB thing - there's two things:

1 - it's just incredibly dumb politics. if you want to get more people to vote for you - those people have most likely supported other parties in the past. how are you going to win these people over if you're booting them from your events?! i can understand all parties wanting to keep partisan trouble makers out from private events, but this is taking things so far that it defeats the purpose!

2 - this is in keeping with a trend the conservatives have had going for a while now. there have been complaints from researchers, teachers - anyone who has publicly criticized conservative policy - that all of the sudden conservative staffers are snooping through their past, trying to dig up any dirt to discredit these people. as far as i'm aware this is unprecedented in Canadian politics.

oh, and a third point:

these people dedicating their energies to all this snooping for the cons, had better be getting paid by the conservatives! they have a habit of getting the tax payer to pick up the tab for their mud-slinging when and wherever possible and i see no reason why this would be any different.

http://warrenkinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-05-at-3.16.12-PM1.png

Is it just me, or is the Toronto Star going overboard with their Liberal Party asslicking (even more so than usual)?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/970557--ignatieff-s-appeal-improving-but-harper-still-leads-poll-says

This was their lead story earlier in the day. The headline says that Iggy is catching up to Harper and the lead paragraph claims that he's "winning hearts and minds". The bad news is that his disapproval ratings are huge (even bigger than Harper's). And his leadership rating is abysmal -- only 14 per cent think that he'd make the best prime minister out the major party leaders. Of course, you have to read the fine print because those numbers are buried further down in the story.

The story also claims that many people who claim to be NDP supporters are really closet Liberal supporters, according to unspecified "pollsters".

these people dedicating their energies to all this snooping for the cons, had better be getting paid by the conservatives!

OK, so this indicates that those RCMP officers doing security for CPC events were in fact involved with restricting non-registered attendees, which is not part of the RCMP's mandate. Also that the CPC seems to be unique in requiring attendees to pre-register.

B4rry, I think they mean that many NDP supporters may actually strategically vote Liberal as opposed to being closet LPC supporters. At least that's how I read it.

same here.

xxxpost. I've noticed that the papers here in Vancouver have also been really critical of Harper and positive about the Liberals and the NDP. I'm fine with it. Harper doesn't deserve such a lead. Anyway, that story from the Star shows the Conservatives leading the Liberals by 11%. That's a hell of a lot better than the 20% or whatever it was from a couple of weeks ago.

and i've noticed that no matter what is happening in the world - the Sun, without fail, has some kind of full page 'OMG IGGY IZ ELETIST AMERICUN" style cover.

since the election was called that is.

oh - except one about the leafs. their lone priority above smearing liberals.

lololol

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/06/cv-election-flash-vote-mobs.html

"I'm not sure what a flash mob is but it sounds a bit disconcerting … I don't know about 'flash' or 'mobs' but I don't like the context of either word."

"... or 'student' either."

I've noticed that the papers here in Vancouver have also been really critical of Harper and positive about the Liberals and the NDP.

CPC campaign strategy, at least for the first portion of the campaign, seemed to revolve around saying the word "coalition" as many times as possible per sentence. Even the right-wingers I know started to find it embarrassing. By way of contrast, while I once swore I'd never support a party led by Michael Ignatieff, I'm thinking of actually donating something based on the LPC campaign so far.

Exactly, Canada. It's time.

Hmm,
Ex-pat Canadians baffled by voting rules

I sent off for my special ballot last week. I didn't find the rules baffling really, just kind of irritating--like why a 5-year rule? Is that the point at which I'm no longer considered to be interested or invested enough in my home country to vote in its elections? grumble grumble.

5 years is approx the amount of time foreign commie indoctrination takes to set in.

Elections Canada is waaaaaaay more organized now than they were in '08. Last time, you had to contact them after the election had been called to be put on the voter list (and by the time they got their shit together and sent my ballot, it was too late to vote). But they've since compiled a list of overseas voters and the ballots were ready as soon as the election was called.

The confusion stems from the fact that Janhunen goes home to visit for about a month once a year. Does that qualify as residency or not? She said she wasn’t able to get a straight answer

I don't know, to me the rules are perfectly clear. For taxation purposes, the definition of residency is clear cut. And what possible definition of "residency" would include "visiting home for about a month once a year"?

Well yeah, that's what I thought too. I visit for a month over xmas but that doesn't make me a resident, obv! But not being able to vote in a year or two under this 5-year rule makes me a sad panda, so boourns to that.

Do you mean 'residency' being is tied to whether or not a person pays taxes in Canada? Seems like an awkward way to determine voting eligibility if so, there are people living in Canada don't pay taxes but they still get to vote, and there are taxpayers who aren't citizens who don't get to vote...

Yeah, you don't need to pay taxes if you want to vote, so they're not linked in that sense. Residency is defined (maybe that's too strong a word) partly for tax purposes, but that's just one possible requirement to be eligible to vote.

It wouldn't be worth it to maintain Canadian residency if it meant that your salary could be taxed. That's not true for everyone, especially if they own a business or do business in Canada, but it's definitely not worth it to maintain residency status just for voting purposes. The five year rule isn't related to taxation either, the rationale is that someone living abroad wouldn't be properly informed about the election or something. This might have made sense pre-internet/pre-24 hour news cycle. Hopefully they'll change the law sometime.

Pretty good little debate on corporate taxes: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1872560664

even better: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-rates-effect-on-business-investment/article1972513/?from=1972599

Am I a bad citizen if I find things like the American budget debate infinitely more interesting than our own election? Even though the outcome affects me directly, I just can't get interested in this crew. Trudeau interested me, ditto a couple of those Mulroney/Turner elections--nothing since that I can remember. I think the nature of my job--regardless of ruling party, public-school teachers are probably as close to a secure pension and a secure job as it gets, plus any salary movement's going to happen within a relatively narrow spectrum--has something to do with it.

normally i'm revolted by US politics and would prefer to ignore it as best as possible.

that post turned out way more Morbs-ian than i intended!

Yeah...the same stuff that revolts you is what draws me in. I do, unfortunately, approach politics for the spectacle.

The 2004 election was more "important" than we realized it was at the time: a referendum on Liberals' ability to govern despite all the scandals, a referendum on Paul Martin as leader, the rise of the re-unified Canadian right, the balance of federal politics shifting even further west. Quebec was at a crossroads where separatism could have gained huge momentum depending on how Quebecers voted.

I prefer having a government that isn't in a perpetual state of clusterfuck like they have in the US. It might be entertaining to watch from afar but good government isn't supposed to be entertaining!

i just think it's so corrupt down there. it makes me sick.

"I prefer having a government that isn't in a perpetual state of clusterfuck like they have in the US." - I just realized that this can be read in two ways, so just to clarify: US = clusterfuck. Canada = less of a clusterfuck and I prefer it that way.

I think in the last election there was a poll taken that found something like 15% of Canadians would trade their vote in Canada to be able to vote in the US (specifically, I think it may have been to trade their vote in the Can 2008 election so they could vote in the US 2008 presidential election). Not sure how much that number would change if re-polled now but it's still a bit :/ I think I'm like the others posting here. US politics are too frustrating, too sickening. Also, I would never want to live there (and thus will never be able to vote there) so I personally don't see much point in paying much attention to what goes on in the US.

It's worth paying attention to what goes on there (leaders of the free world, etc.) but I don't envy the way they do politics.

The Star can barely hide their excitement today (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/972241--ndp-fortunes-falling-fast-in-latest-poll?bn=1)

According to Nanos, support for the New Democrats in Ontario has declined for seven days in succession.

Nationally, Conservatives sit at 40.5 per cent, Liberals 31.7 per cent, NDP, 13.2 per cent, Bloc Quebecois, 9.2 per cent and Greens, 4.0 per cent.

The Nanos survey of 1,011 decided Canadians was conducted April 6-8, and is considered plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

A Layton spokesperson argued that the average of all the polls so far is 17.5 per cent for the NDP. (my emphasis)

LOL seriously, NDP?? Here's a crazy thought: if you can't pass fourth grade math, then you can't figure out how to balance the budget by 2014.

not even sure why the Star would be so excited - with the Cons still polling better than they did in '08 i don't see much to celebrate.

Still plenty of time for those numbers to change, especially if stuff like this keeps coming out: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/972725--tories-come-under-attack-over-ag-s-shocking-g8-spending-report?bn=1

Just noticing for the first time here how much Sarkozy looks like Kids In the Hall's Kevin McDonald.

ha ha.

i was just coming to post that article. fuck tony clement. i hope he goes to prison.

A Layton spokesperson argued that the average of all the polls so far is 17.5 per cent for the NDP. (my emphasis)

LOL seriously, NDP?? Here's a crazy thought: if you can't pass fourth grade math, then you can't figure out how to balance the budget by 2014.

I mean, it depends which polls you look at but that's not completely insane, although it's as optimistic as every political party's self-evaluation is. Looking at Election Almanac, there have been several polls that showed the NDP above that number, as well as below. (A few in the 20-21 range.) Admittedly, I didn't bother doing an average myself.

(And yeah, something like the release of an Auditor-General's report is what I was referring to upthread:

So far there haven't been any official findings that money was pissed away on corrupt partisanship or grossly and inappropriately misspent.)

Btw, I'm no military expert but the NDP's defence plan is actually sounding pretty good to me: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-pans-tory-defence-plan-unveils-made-in-canada-alternative/article1976679/?from=sec368