Canadian Politics Thread

think i'll head over to City Hall at 4.

Fuck, I just got the news. Did not expect this at all. So crushing. RIP.

that's amazing, that he took the time to write it, that it must have been so heartbreaking to do, and how much he meant it, and just, damn.

I can only echo this.

Unquestionably heartbreaking.

Just got back from city hall. Cute posters of Jack's high school photo, and others with the final words of his last letter: "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

It kind of blows my mind when you consider Jack's record. He's been on the progressive side of the issue for his entire career in this way that in retrospect seems precognitive.

Montrealers - there's a vigil in Parc Mont Royal at 8 tonight being organized by NPD Québec right by the statue of Cartier.

And yeah, that letter. I can't even imagine having the strength and character to write something like that, let alone one as comforting, eloquent and powerful as what he wrote.

I mean - a paragraph encouraging fellow Canadians with cancer to remain optimistic and not lose hope because of his prognosis? What an astounding display of empathy above and beyond the call of duty.

That part nearly made me lose it when I read it. What a brave man he was. RIP Jack.

So heartbroken guys

it's really sad to see how strong his mind was even when his body was about to give out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psvexcOn1M8&feature=player_embedded#!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xEBa_ba6RA

Those pretty much effortless sum up why this man was awesome.

Also, the compilation of video clips from his entire political career here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/22/f-jack-layton-death-legacy.html

I forgot until this afternoon that he was also a co-founder of the White Ribbon Campaign.

Ahhh :( what a great video

This has just been really bumming me out all day. I went to city hall in Toronto, and at the same time it was incredibly sad and so motivating. It's become apparent that Jack was an irreplaceable person, and that he's left a void at a time and a place where we all really needed him, and that, for me, I can no longer justify my apathy and my passivity. Looking to the future of Canadian politics, in and against growing conservativism, can be kind of scary, and I feel like I can no longer shirk obligations that go beyond voting and opinions. I can only hope his loss will actually engender some of this hope that I may go out and do enter a public, political sphere in an active and engaged manner. If so, it'll no doubt be with him in the back of my mind.

Here's a really nice reader letter that was posted on Andrew Sullivan's site:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/mourning-in-canada.html

OTM. I was struck today at how unabashedly earnest everyone has been (to say nothing of Jack's letter). I couldn't imagine this with any other politician. It sincerely feels as if we are mourning a person, not a political position (though a course a person whose politics is very much part of what made him a great person).

Well said EDB.

I just went to the vigil here in Vancouver and it filled a city block. A friend was saying how you couldn't imagine this for any other politician (or any other non-hockey Canadian, probably?)

wow, state funeral. that's kind of awesome of Mr Harper.

That some people are concerned Harper's trying to score points by having a state funeral for him pisses me off more than I can explain.

Seriously? I'm no fan of PM Harper, but it's the right thing to do no matter how you cut it, and I really don't care what the motivations for it are. Way to miss the point of Layton's entire final letter, concerntrolls of the universe. *sigh*

this is great: http://torontoist.com/topics/layton-memorial.php

it got even crazier:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6076393292_91e4be89e5_z.jpg

& this pic of Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davis is just devastating me right now:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01311/web-folio-layto_1311834cl-8.jpg

what i meant to do was this:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6076393292_91e4be89e5_z.jpg

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01311/web-folio-layto_1311834cl-8.jpg

I wish we didn't have this crazy rainstorm/tornado whatever because I'd love to go back to NPSq tomorrow to look at it.

Alberta's PC party has its new leader: Alison Redford, apparently a 'lifelong' conservative, though her platform reads so centrist it could be interchangeable with a lot of Liberal ones. A lot of people are surprised by this and it's caused quite a stir. From comments I've seen, some on the far right aren't happy (some of them sound like they're scared of how 'socialist' she is!). There are some mumblings that her centrist-y position leaves the far right open for Wildrose to take, which should make for an interesting election. I'm sure the tories will win anyway, but recent leadership shake-ups for PC and Lib parties plus the 'rise' of Wildrose could make things more exciting in Alberta's next election than usual.

I still wouldn't vote for her but she's a much better option than a lot of candidates the PC party could've thrown up.

Some stories: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/provincial-elections/redford-is-albertas-next-premier/article2187705/page1/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/01/edmonton-alberta-tory-leadership-results.html

Our big Ontario election is this week. Terrible--I've watched every Republican debate so far, but have hardly followed my own province at all. Looks like it'll be close; I'll focus this week and see if the Conservatives are winning my own riding, and if they are and it's also close, I'll likely vote for whoever has the best chance to beat them. My union (teachers) has probably shot itself in the foot with ads that have angered a lot of people, some teachers I know included.

Ugh. The prospect of Toronto being under a conservative mayor, premier, and pm terrifies me.

NDP race anyone?
Personally pretty disappointed with the outcome, though I suppose I'm not really surprised. I'm nervous for the future of the party... I just can't see a Mulcair-led NDP really carrying on from Layton's NDP. There isn't much Mulcair brings to the party that is particularly 'NDP' in terms of his policies or ideology.
So now we have a former Liberal leading the NDP and a former NDP leading the Liberals. It's all gone a bit topsy-turvy on the left, hasn't it?

i was hoping cullen would pull it out. but layton was irreplaceable, i don't think any of the candidates could have brought everything jack did.

Ha, I've been discussing this stuff so much on Maple Leaf Web but I'm a stan for Mulcair and am pleased/relieved. I never bought that he is that much more of a centrist than Layton (or, especially, say, Doer or Dexter). He has been a serious environmentalist for a long time - with a real record to back it up - and led the fight against corporate tax cuts. (Honestly, the policy disagreements between the candidates generally struck me as extremely minor, except for Cullen's joint nomination idea.) As a speaker and debater, I always thought he was a great complement to Layton; I might actually prefer him of the two. Btw, he was a QC provincial Liberal: there is no provincial NPD; the social democratic provincial parties are all separatist/sovereigntist. (He left Charest's cabinet over environmental policy issues btw). I give Mulcair much of the credit for being able to sell Quebec on social democracy without separatism.

And I'm sorry if you're a Cullen supporter but I thought the joint nomination proposal was half-baked and ludicrous. I just do not see any sensible reason why the NDP should co-operate with the Liberals in some ridings, only fielding one candidate between the two parties, while competing with them in others. If you want a merger, call for a merger. (I don't support the idea but I can at least take it seriously.) Either the NDP and Liberals are two distinct parties with distinct agendas that are competing for voters or they are not. It doesn't mean that they can't co-operate in the House after winning seats on their own terms; that's a separate issue. I also think lowering the voting age is pointless. Let's work on encouraging more 18- to 25-year-olds to vote before we worry about extending the franchise to kids in Grade 11.

("Stan" is an exaggeration, admittedly.)

that's all good to hear...I liked Cullen more for his personality than for the idea of the merger, but I am very frustrated by the split of the anti-Harper vote every election.

I do like his personality, don't get me wrong! And Cullen wasn't advocating a merger, remember.

i liked Cullen for his cooperation idea and was pulling for him.
could not disagree with you any more, sund4r - the sensible reason to divy some ridings is very simple. to beat the conservatives. the guys running things with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. why doom yourselves to the opposition benches, when with a little deal-brokering at least one of the left(ish)-of-center parties can form government? not cooperating until after an election, when your collective seat total is that much diminished because you couldn't work together before the election, seems a little silly to me. i don't see why the only options are to fight each other or merge. there's a middle ground i think can be found that will also not have to be permanent... one party gets too powerful or corrupt (such as our current ruling party) - you're not stuck with them.

i'm curious to find out more about this alleged hacking. and who might be behind it. like, what did they hope to achieve? is it maybe one or two pranksters trolling the convention - or something more sinister? perhaps one of those berzerk conservative phone-bots?!

could not disagree with you any more, sund4r - the sensible reason to divy some ridings is very simple. to beat the conservatives. the guys running things with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. why doom yourselves to the opposition benches, when with a little deal-brokering at least one of the left(ish)-of-center parties can form government?

I just think that this prioritizes beating the CPC over either party's own policies or platform, which seems like a weak position to go into an election with. Especially since the Liberals still have an interim leader: would it even make a difference who was leading them and what platform they were running on? If the PCs and Alliance had tried something like this 10 years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have seen it as cheap and desperate.

And how do we decide which ridings to divide like this? Based on the last election's results? Opinion polls? Even when the last election was called, no one foresaw the NDP sweeping so much of Quebec, for example. Should the NDP have allowed the Liberals (or BQ?) to compete in all those ridings without NDP support?

Besides, I never saw any sign that Cullen had even run the idea by the Liberals. Does anyone expect that they will refrain from fielding candidates in Quebec or the Prairies next time to help out the NDP?

without NDP support?

"without NDP competition", sorry.

apparently the ndp had run the idea past the Libs when they were the 3rd party and the idea was immediately shot down. i think Topp might have cited that as a reason he didn't want to try again, tbh. and i don't see you point re: the libs having an interm leader. if Cullen had hypothetically won, then it would put the ball in the Liberal's corner when they picked a leader. and i have a feeling they'd be more open to the idea this time around!

I just think that this prioritizes beating the CPC over either party's own policies or platform
yes, this is pretty much literally what would be happening. and like i said, your policies and platform aren't going to do you a hell of a lot of good when you're in the wilderness of opposition. it's not ideal, but working in tandem with a party you have some common ground with would certainly be preferable to being dominated by a party party you have nothing in common with.

no idea how they'd work out who would and wouldn't run where tho.

and i don't see you point re: the libs having an interm leader.

My point is that the Liberals' policies have varied fairly widely over the years, depending on a number of things, but often depending on the leader, who has more direct control over LPC policy than an NDP leader has over NDP policy. I have no trouble imagining a version of the LPC that I would want to see in government. I also have little trouble imagining a version of the LPC that seems no better or worse to me than the CPC.

ok - i see your point there.
except for the part about possibly being no better or worse than the cpc. worst case scenario for me would be Rae becoming permanent leader and i would still take that over Harper in a heart beat. i honestly cannot fathom who they could possibly elect as leader that would make me look at Harper and his goons and think that was somehow better.

I was a bit weary of Cullen's coop/mutual support thing but it's something I prb could've been sold on. One of the things I liked about Cullen (and this might sound stupid or irrelevant) is that he's spent his political career in the other half of the country, y'know, not Ontario and not Quebec, so there's a proximity with the west there and I sort of wondered if that might help boost the NDP in, say, Alberta or Sask.

He's certainly built up recognition though, hopefully it'll translate into a bigger role for him in the party. He seems like an alright guy.

weary? wary...

I live in SK right now. I'm not sure that Cullen would boost the NDP any better than Mulcair here but I'll admit that I don't know that I really have a feel for SK politics yet. (I do know that I'd definitely say retaining QC seats seems like a higher priority than trying to pick up a couple of the 14 seats in SK.)

Here's the thing: I and I think most voters would rather vote for something than against something. I'm no Harper fan; I give my time and money to the NDP; but I'm not sure that I feel like the current CPC government is so dangerous and evil that they have to be stopped at all cost. Nor do I think most voters feel this way. I think they're sincere that they're not going to touch same-sex marriage or abortion or bring back capital punishment in Canada. I don't believe that they have plans to privatize health coverage in a significant way (and the Liberals really did gut health care and education funding).

Now, if the opposition parties were coming together on a matter of principle - e.g. if the Liberals were to say "the government's disregard for the environment has been so appalling that we'll do what we can to help the NDP win power instead (AND WE HAVE AGREED ON THIS ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION)" or "this crime policy is going to be so disastrous that we need to come together to fight this" etc - I could easily see the point of co-operation (although dividing up ridings still seems like a problematic way to go about it). But I haven't seen anything like this. It's hard to get behind co-operation if the only point is to 'beat the Conservatives' (and again, I've never seen the slightest hint that the LPC has any interest in 'beating the Conservatives' unless it actually means that the LPC will be governing the country and not even as a junior partner in a coalition). As I understood it, Cullen's plan was to co-operate just in order to implement mixed-member proportional representation, which is not a system I support anyway.

that's all pretty otm (except for pro-rep, pro-rep in canada would be awesome)

the libs have gone so far to the left since being out of office i don't think there's a difference between them and the ndp anymore. the last two liberal candidates certainly haven't been able to articulate any, and I doubt rae will do any better. it would be nice if they could find a matter of principle to unite over.

can we talk about bc politics here? the bc liberals are (at long last) falling apart. and it is wonderful.